Uttarakhand High Court
Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others" on 9 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.245 OF 2021
9th AUGUST, 2021
Between:
Smt. Beena Rana .......Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others.
.......Respondents
Counsel for the : Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior
appellant Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay
Bhatt, learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma)
This special appeal has been filed against
the order dated 15.06.2021, passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPSS No. 538 of 2021, "Smt. Beena
Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and others", whereby
the learned Single Judge is not inclined to grant the
stay order in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner.
2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that an
advertisement was published by the District Program
Officer, Child Development, Uttarkashi, the
respondent no.3, for the appointment of Mini
Karyakarti in Mini Aganwadi Centre in Village Kapola,
District Uttarkashi. The appellant as well as one Km.
Deepika had applied for the aforesaid post. Km.
Deepika was not eligible to be appointed to the said
post. However, Smt. Deepika was wrongly selected.
Therefore, the appellant filed a writ petition.
Thereafter, the income certificate of Km. Deepika was
cancelled. She filed a writ petition. Both these writ
petitions were decided by a common judgment. Km.
Deepika filed two special appeals. Since the order of
cancellation of income certificate was passed without
given an opportunity of hearing, therefore, the
learned Co-ordinate Bench directed the respondent
therein, to offer an appointment to Km. Deepika to
the post of Mini Aganwadi Karyakarti. The appellant
had filed a review application in the special appeal.
Thereupon, the Co-ordinate Bench modified the order
and directed the appointing authority to take a
decision, based on the report of the Tehsildar. The
learned Co-ordinate Bench directed that depending
upon the outcome of the decision, either the appellant
shall be continued as a Mini Aganwadi Karyakarti or
2
the review applicant (appellant herein) shall be
appointed to the said post. The services of Km.
Deepika were terminated on 23.07.2019. Thereafter,
the appellant should be considered, but, the Project
Officer, Child Development, Naugaon, Uttarkashi,
respondent no.4, passed an order dated 22.01.2020
(impugned in the writ petition), by which, on the basis
of the report of the Tehsildar that the appellant was
not having the residential certificate as per law, the
said post has been declared vacant. Therefore, the
appellant filed the writ petition no.538 of 2021 (S/S)
with the following reliefs:-
(i) a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated
22.01.2020.
(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent nos.3
and 4 to issue an order of appointment in favour
of the petitioner to the post of Mini Aaganwadi
Karyakarti.
3. The appellant-writ petitioner filed a interim
relief application with her writ petition praying to stay
the impugned order dated 22.01.2020, and the
respondent nos.3 and 4 be directed to issue an order
3
of appointment in her favour to the post of Mini
Aganwadi Karyakarti with all consequential benefits.
4. After hearing both the parties, the learned
Single Judge rejected the stay application of the
appellant-writ petitioner and observed, " Considering
the factual backdrop of the case, as the controversy
entails the selection process of Mini Aganwadi
Karyakarti, which pertains to the years 2013-14, this
is the third phase of litigation, which has been
agitated now by way of present Writ Petition, whereby
the petitioner's claim for appointment as Mini
Aganwadi Karyakarti was rejected by the order dated
22nd January, 2020, which is impugned in the present
Writ Petition.
The foundation of the Writ Petition is based upon
the revalidation certificate, which has been issued in
favour of the petitioner on 17th August, 2020, i.e. post
passing of the impugned order. Hence, that cannot be
a foundation for the purposes of challenging the order
of rejection of 22nd January, 2020, as of now.
The respondents may file their counter affidavit.
4
As far as the Stay Application is concerned, I am
of the view that this is not a fit case in which stay
could be granted."
5. Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, the learned
counsel for the appellant through video conferencing
and perused the record.
6. Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant, submitted that the
respondent no.4 was wrong to hold that the appellant
did not have the permanent resident certificate as per
rules, and the appellant was wrongly denied for the
appointment to the post of Mini Aganwadi Karyakarti.
Therefore, the respondents should be directed to
appoint the appellant to the said post.
7. This Court asked a specific question to Mr.
T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate, can the Court
direct to appoint a person on any public post? It could
not be answered by him.
8. In the present matter, the final relief and
the interim relief are the same. An interim relief can
be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main
relief. It is well settled that by way of interim relief
5
final relief cannot be granted. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been emphasizing that the Court while
dealing with the case at an interim stage cannot grant
a relief which amounts to final relief (State of
Rajasthan and others vs. Swaika Properties and
another, [AIR 1985 SC 1289]; Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. and others vs. Prem Chand Premi
and another, [(2005) 13 SCC 505].
9. Therefore, this Court does not find any
merit in the present appeal to interfere in the
impugned order dated 15.06.2021. Consequently, the
special appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No
order as to costs.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt:9th August, 2021
Mamta/Pant
