Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 238 (UTT)

CHAMNI BHANDARI v. UNION OF INDIA

2020-06-08

RAVI MALIMATH

body2020
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ravi Malimath, J. The case of the writ petitioners is that they were employed as teachers with the second respondent. Their appointment dates vary from the year 2012 onwards. They have been appointed for a period of about 11 months every year. However, this year the respondents have issued an advertisement dated 14.05.2020, calling for applications for the purposes of appointment of teachers on ad-hoc basis. It is the case of the writ petitioners that they are ad-hoc teachers; since, they have already been working as teachers with the respondent school, there is no reason to go in for a fresh advertisement calling for fresh applications. The previous teachers who are serving in the school can very well be asked to continue their services. 2. Assuming that the school intends to make a regular appointment then it is a different issue. However, the school does not intend to make any regular appointment. They are making appointments for a fixed period. This act leads to miscarriage of justice etc. It is pleaded that the advertisement calling for applications be quashed. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 questions the very maintainability of the writ petition. On facts, he states that such a procedure is being adopted by the respondents for quite some time every year. Applications are called for. Persons apply for the said posts. Interviews are held and the best available persons are chosen. The petitioners have applied and participated in the previous interviews every time. Therefore, they cannot make out a new case at this point of time. Hence, it is pleaded that since the interest of the school is to appoint the very best teachers, the petitioners may also participate in the interview as they have been doing so in the previous years. 4. On hearing learned counsels, I do not find any merit in this petition. The process of selection of ad-hoc teachers has been going on for quite some time. Every year, depending on the need for the teachers, the institution calls for the applications for the concerned post. Those interested apply for the same. The writ petitioners have made their applications earlier. The instant appointment orders, which have been produced along with the writ petition, are also annexed. Petitioners have participated in the interview. Every year, depending on the need for the teachers, the institution calls for the applications for the concerned post. Those interested apply for the same. The writ petitioners have made their applications earlier. The instant appointment orders, which have been produced along with the writ petition, are also annexed. Petitioners have participated in the interview. Therefore, I do not find any changed circumstance that has arisen this year that warrants any interference. The procedure adopted by the school is being done on a year to year basis. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. 5. The further contention of the petitioners' counsel is that the principal has changed and the new principal is biased against the petitioners. There is no material to indicate that there is any bias by the new principal against the petitioners. It is needless to state that the principal of the school is appointed to act in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Therefore, such a contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. 6. The further plea of the petitioners' counsel is that so far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, after the school was closed, they have gone back to their home town. Therefore, it is not possible for them to attend the interview scheduled on 9th and 10th June 2020. The submission is answered by the respondents' counsel by indicating that so far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, he would ensure that their interview would take place on 10.06.2020, so as to enable them to make necessary arrangements to participate in the interview. The undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents is placed on record. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Registry to furnish the certified copy of this order to the learned counsels by the end of the day.