Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 493 (UTT)

HARISH KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-12-11

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral) These four Writ Petitions, which are listed for orders, since they involve consideration of a common interlocutory situation, hence, they are with the consent of the counsel for the parties are being considered together but, for the purposes of arriving to an ultimate conclusion, the interlocutory orders and situation which has arisen in each of the Writ Petitions are being dealt with separately. 2. It is not disputed by any of the counsels of any of the Writ Petitions that the process of selection, which has been undertaken and which is now in question in the Writ Petitions has been resorted to by the State on the basis of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court. On the culmination of the process of selection of the Assistant Teachers the petitioners have pointed out certain anomalies, which they contend has given them a cause to agitate, in various Writ Petitions. 3. In the first Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1582/2018 ‘Harish Kumar & Others vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another' the petitioners have sought a relief to the effect that the notification dated 01.06.2018 issued by respondent no. 2, whereby, less number of candidates have been invited for counseling, may be quashed and the petitioners also sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to revise the marks of petitioner no. 1 and further he may be awarded 1.5 marks more and accordingly revised result of the petitioner no. 1 may be issued. 4. The said Writ Petition was taken up by this Court on 15.06.2018. Initially the notices were issued. Later on, by way of an interim order dated 21.06.2018 the respondents were restrained from issuing appointment letters to the selected candidates, which is quoted hereunder: “As an interim measure, till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained from issuing appointment letters to the selected candidates." 5. In the meantime, an interim order granted by this Court continued to operate till all these four matters were taken up once again by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 10.10.2018 and the following order was passed: “Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General with Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicants/interveners. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General with Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicants/interveners. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Chief Standing Counsel referred to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.08.2018 in Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No.86 of 2013. In the said judgment, following directions were issued to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission as well as to the State Government. Paragraph no. 7 of the said judgment reads as under: “7. Now, the Court will advert to the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers (L.T.) Grade in Senior Secondary Schools. The State Government has sent the requisition for filling up 1214 posts to the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The Subordinate Service Commission has conducted the written examination, the result whereof has been declared and the counseling is going on. Direction:- Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission to complete the process within a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the recommendation shall be sent to the State Government forthwith. The State Government shall make the appointments within a period of three weeks." In view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No.86 of 2013, the interim orders in all connected petitions stand vacated. However, it is observed that the selection process shall be subject to the final decision of the writ petitions. Respondents shall specifically mention in the appointment letters to be issued that the appointments issued to the candidates will be subject to the final outcome of WPSS No.1582/2018, WPSS No.1732/2018, WPSS No.1961/2018 & WPSS No.2483/2018. Let certified copy of this order be issued to the parties within 24 hours. Stay vacation application (CLMA No.12797/2018) stands disposed of." 6. Respondents shall specifically mention in the appointment letters to be issued that the appointments issued to the candidates will be subject to the final outcome of WPSS No.1582/2018, WPSS No.1732/2018, WPSS No.1961/2018 & WPSS No.2483/2018. Let certified copy of this order be issued to the parties within 24 hours. Stay vacation application (CLMA No.12797/2018) stands disposed of." 6. The resultant effect of the order dated 10.10.2018 was that the Coordinate Bench being conscious of the fact that the process of selection being conducted as a consequence of the judgment dated 14.08.2018 rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 86/2013 and keeping in mind that any order in nature of refraining order from proceeding with the selection process would run in contravention to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court had vacated the interim orders passed in all the Writ Petitions, with the observations that the selection process shall be subject to the final decision of the Writ Petition and also with an observation that the appointment letter issued to the selected candidates will also be subject to the final decision of the orders passed in connected Writ Petitions as mentioned therein. 7. While the earlier Writ Petition was pending another Writ Petition was preferred before this Court being Writ Petition No. 1961 of 2018 ‘Amit Kandwal & Others vs. Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission & Others' in which the petitioners to the Writ Petition had prayed for quashing of the Provisional Merit List dated 31.05.2018, which was issued on culmination of the selection process of the Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Physical Education) pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.01.2017 and a prayer was also made to conduct a high level inquiry. 8. In this Writ Petition, the Court on 04.07.2018 while making reference to the interim order granted in the earlier identical Writ Petition No. 1582/2018, admitted the petition and a reference was made to the interim orders also of Writ Petition. The interim order in the order dated 04.07.2018. But, that may not hold us for a longer time because for the purposes of deciding the controversy as it stands today at the interlocutory stage. The Writ Petition No. 1961/2018 was taken up before the Coordinate Bench of this Court and by the order dated 20.11.2018 the Coordinate Bench has passed an order constituting a Committee headed by Mr. But, that may not hold us for a longer time because for the purposes of deciding the controversy as it stands today at the interlocutory stage. The Writ Petition No. 1961/2018 was taken up before the Coordinate Bench of this Court and by the order dated 20.11.2018 the Coordinate Bench has passed an order constituting a Committee headed by Mr. D. Senthil Pandiyan, who is Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Uttarakhand, to be its Chairman, who was to conduct enquiry in the selection process, and the Committee was required to submit its report in relation to the issues referred in the order dated 20.11.2018. The report has been submitted in the sealed cover in this Writ Petition. 9. There was a third petition filed being Writ Petition No. 2483 of 2018 ‘Pushpa Karki vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others'. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has made a prayer of a writ of mandamus to the selecting body in relation to the reservation, which was to be made available in the process of selection of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade, which is in question. In this Writ Petition initially the Court passed an order dated 31.07.2018, which is quoted hereinbelow: “After considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained from issuing appointment letters to the selected candidates." 10. In this order dated 31.07.2018 the Court had directed thereof that the respondents were restrained from issuing appointment letters to the selected candidates. However, this order may not hold us yet again for a longer time for the reason being that by an interim order granted herein on 31.07.2018, has been specifically vacated by the order dated 10.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 1582/2018 along with other connected Writ Petitions. 11. Lastly, the issue which is of concern as on date is the subsequent order, which has been passed in this Writ Petition on 15.11.2018, which is to the following effect: “Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Addl. C.S.C. present for the State/respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate present for respondent no. 5. A statement has been given in the Court by Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Addl. C.S.C. present for the State/respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate present for respondent no. 5. A statement has been given in the Court by Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no. 5 that during the pendency of the writ petition, final select list has been published. Petitioner is given three days' time to file supplementary affidavit in order to challenge the final select list. List this case on 19.11.2018 in the daily cause list. Till the next date of listing, appointment orders shall not be issued." 12. Consequently, the effect of this order is that the effect of the interim order dated 15.11.2018 passed in this Writ Petition the entire process of selection has been brought to a stand still as the respondents have been restrained from issuing any letter of appointment, despite of the culmination of the process of selection, which was conducted in pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court. This was affecting adversely because the State was unable to meet the eminent need of Assistant Teachers, whose services were required and was also against the interest of the selected candidates, who despite of they being selected, could not join the services. 13. Lastly, a reference to the Writ Petition No. 4009 of 2018 ‘Raghuwant Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand' cannot be ignored, which happens to be one of the Writ Petition connected with the bunch, whereby, a relief has sought by way of a mandamus seeking a recommendation to be made in favour of the petitioner to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade. In the said Writ Petition no order was passed and rather it was simply connected with the other bunch of Writ Petitions. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in all the connected four Writ Petitions, as well as, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the interveners Mr. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in all the connected four Writ Petitions, as well as, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the interveners Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, this Court after having summed up the entire proceedings, which has been taken in different Writ Petitions as on date is of a view that, once a process of selection of the Assistant Teacher has been proceeded on the basis of the order passed by the Division Bench, and it intended to meet the public requirement of the services of the teachers in various schools, it ought not to have been installed by an interim order passed by the Single Judge. More particularly, when the candidates, who had participated in the selection, if are aggrieved by the results or process of selection thus declared by the Commission. The anomalies thus committed, if any, could always be scrutinized by the Writ Courts when their Writ Petition is taken up on merits, and under law, if their claim is settled on merits in their favour after its adjudication the law already perceives a grant of relief to them, whichever is permissible under law, but that in itself will not justify passing of an order keeping the entire process of issuance of letter of appointment in abeyance the entire selection process at a hold and consequently, the appointment as it happens to be the detriment to the public policy as well as it happens to be in detriment to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as of the Division Bench judgment. 15. Consequently, considering the entire facts, in its totality while vacating the order dated 15.11.2018, it is directed as an interim measure that it would be open to the respondents to proceed with the selection process and issue letter of appointments to the selected candidates, which would make a reference of today's order in their letter of appointment. 16. However, it is made clear that issuance of any such appointment letter will not prejudice the right of the petitioners to agitate their claim in the Writ Petition and the appointments thus made thereto were to abide by the decision taken by this Court in the present Writ Petition. 17. 16. However, it is made clear that issuance of any such appointment letter will not prejudice the right of the petitioners to agitate their claim in the Writ Petition and the appointments thus made thereto were to abide by the decision taken by this Court in the present Writ Petition. 17. Subject to the above observations, all stay applications, as well as, stay vacation applications filed in all connected Writ Petitions stand disposed. 18. Let a copy of this order be placed in the order-sheets of all the other connected Writ Petitions.