Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 371 (UTT)

Pradeep v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-12-05

R.C.KHULBE, VIPIN SANGHI

body2022
JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - Issue Notice. 2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand /respondent Nos. 1 to 4, appears and accepts notice. 3. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, also appears and accepts notice. IA No. 2 of 2022 4. Present Application seeking leave to appeal has been preferred by the appellants to assail the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2794 of 2022, preferred by respondent No. 5, i.e. Committee of Management, R.M.P.P. Vidhyalaya Inter College, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar. 5. The impugned order dated 18.11.2022 reads as follows:- 'Shri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri T.S. Phartiyal, learned Addl. CSC for the State of Uttarakhand. Petitioner is a Committee of Management of RMPP Vidyalaya Inter College, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents no. 3 and 4 to consider the applications seeking approval for the post of Principal AND Lecturer & Assistant Teacher (LT) respectively in the petitioner college. Shri T.S. Phartiyal, learned Addl.CSC for the State would intimate this Court that applications seeking approval for the post of Principal AND Lecturer & Assistant Teacher (LT) are pending before the respondents no. 3 and 4. In that view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents no. 3 and 4 to take decision on the applications (Annexure Nos. 2 to 4 to the writ petition) seeking approval for the post of Principal AND Lecturer & Assistant Teacher (LT) within a period of 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs' 6. It appears that the appellants offered their candidatures for the posts of Lecturer (English) and Assistant Teacher (Science) in the recruitment process. However, they could not succeed. They have now preferred the present Application seeking leave to Appeal on the premise that by obtaining the impugned order, the writ petitioners are indirectly pressurizing the respondent-authorities, i.e. the Regional Additional Director, Intermediate Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri and the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, District Haridwar to grant approval for appointment against several posts. 7. However, they could not succeed. They have now preferred the present Application seeking leave to Appeal on the premise that by obtaining the impugned order, the writ petitioners are indirectly pressurizing the respondent-authorities, i.e. the Regional Additional Director, Intermediate Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri and the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, District Haridwar to grant approval for appointment against several posts. 7. Pertinently, the appellants did not offer their candidatures for posts of Principal, Lecturer (Hindi), Lecturer (Arts), Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit), Assistant Teacher (English), Assistant Teacher (Science and EWS), Assistant Teacher (Mathematics) (SC and unreserved) and Assistant Teacher (Physical Education), which are the posts in respect of which the writ petition had been preferred. 8. The challenge is raised to the impugned order on the premise that a ban was imposed on further recruitment on 10.11.2022 by the order issued by the Director General, School Education, Uttarakhand. 9. According to the appellants, contrary to this order, the approval is sought to be obtained from respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 10. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel, who appears for respondent No. 5 submits that the appellants have not been declared successful in respect of the posts for which they offered their candidature. He has tendered in the Court the result of the selection process in relation to the posts for which the appellants had offered their candidatures, which is taken on record. A copy of the same be also served on the learned counsel for the appellants. 11. The appellants having participated in the same selection process, cannot be seen to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Merely because the appellants have failed to get selected in respect of the posts against which they offered their candidatures, does not give a cause to them now to turn around and claim that the recruitment process could not have been undertaken at all in the light of the order dated 10.11.2022. In any event, it is for the respondent-authorities to consider the effect of the said order dated 10.11.2022, which, we are sure, shall be taken into consideration while deciding the representation of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 5. 12. The Special Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 13. Consequently, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.