Medhani Prasad vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1110 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                    Writ Petition (S/S) No. 393 of 2021

Medhani Prasad                                              ....... Petitioner

                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & others                               ......Respondents



Present: Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
         Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional CSC with Ms. Indu Sharma, Brief Holder for
        the State/respondents.


                                  Judgment

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner

claiming that he is eligible for consideration of "Shailesh Matiyani

State Teacher Award, 2018" (for short "the award"), and related

reliefs.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a

teacher in the year 1990. In the year 2018, he applied for the award. He

was not granted the award and it was told that since he is on the

extension of service, he is not eligible for consideration of the award.

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition (S/S) No. 235 of 2021 (for short

"the writ petition"). The writ petition was disposed of with the

direction that the petitioner shall make a fresh representation to the

authorities. The petitioner made a representation, which was rejected

on 22.02.2021. This rejection order is impugned in this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

4. A few facts are undisputed. Petitioner has already retired

from service on 30.09.2020. He applied for the award of 2018 as per

the directions of the competent authority in the year 2019. After

retirement, the petitioner was given extension till the current

educational session which ends on 30.03.2021. The candidature of the

petitioner for the award has not been considered on the ground that

since he is on the extension of service, therefore, he is not eligible for

it.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

concerned Government Order does not make the petitioner ineligible

for the award merely on the ground that he is on the extension of

service. It is submitted that a Rohitashav Kunwar was given the award

during the extension of his service.

6. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that in view of the

Government Order No. 437/XXIV-4/2009 dated 20.10.2009 of the

Education Department (for short "the Government Order dated

20.10.2009"), the petitioner is not eligible for the award because,

according to clause 4 of it, reappointed teachers are not eligible for it.

7. The Court wanted to know from the learned State Counsel

as to what is the eligibility date. When the award is given or when the

applications are sought. To it, he would submit that he will have to

examine the matter for ascertaining this fact.

8. Arguments have already been heard. The Court proceeds

to adjudicate on this issue as well.

9. The Government Order dated 20.10.2009, which launches

the Scheme for the award is Annexure-6 to the petition. The standard

for selecting for the award is given at serial no. 3 to it. It gives various

criteria. The criteria no. 1 is that in the previous calendar year, a

teacher must have completed 15 years of service. Similarly, the criteria

no. 2 says that till the preceding year, the Principals must have

completed 20 years of service.

10. The words "preceding year" are very significant.

Preceding year to what. It simply means the preceding year to the year

when the application for the award is made. It may be noted here that

the award is not given on the basis of assessment made by the

Government, instead applications are invited to consider a person for

the award. The Court will advert to this issue at a litter later.

11. Annexure No-1 is the communication made by the

Director Education seeking applications for the award of 2018. It gives

a calendar as to up till which date the applications are to be submitted;

when they would physically be verified; when will reports be

submitted; when the recommendation will be made from the District;

when the Regional Selection Committee would sit and when will they

finally decide it at the Regional Level. This date is 20.08.2019. For

State Level Committee meeting the date is also given in this

communication, which is 25.08.2020, and 28.08.2019 is the date when

the proposals were to be sent by the Directorate to the Government.

This communication of the Director Education was further

communicated at Block Level by the Chief Education Officer,

Uttarkashi by his communication dated 28.05.2019, which is

Annexure-2. It is important that in the communication of the Director

Education as well as in the communication of the Chief Education

Officer, Uttarkashi, at serial no. 3 it is noted that the applications of

only eligible candidates be forwarded.

12. It means that the eligibility is to be ascertained from the

date when the application is to be given. Rules, Regulations and

Government Orders are to be read in such a manner that each of its

provision is given meaningful interpretation. What if applications are

invited today prescribing maximum age limit for any appointment, and

appointments are made after six years. Can after six years it be said

that a candidate has become overage? Perhaps it cannot be. There

should be a cut-off date, when a person would be eligible either for the

award as in the instant case, or for appointment on any post in case of

fresh recruitment or promotion, etc.

13. There is no dispute to the fact that on the date when the

petitioner applied for the award, he was eligible. The Government

Order dated 20.10.2009 also does not categorically stipulate the date of

eligibility, but it speaks of the "preceding year". The communication

of the Director Education dated 27.05.2019 and the Chief Education

Officer, Uttarkashi dated 28.05.2019 also state that applications of

ineligible candidates may not be forwarded. The interpretation of these

communications in the light of the Government Order dated

20.10.2009 makes it abundantly clear that the eligibility is to be

determined on the date when the applications are presented. Therefore,

without adverting to any other issue, this Court is of the view that the

candidature for the consideration of the award to the petitioner may not

be rejected on the ground that the day when the Committee for

selection, considered the matter, the petitioner was not eligible. This

Court also restrains to direct the State Government to confer the award

on the petitioner, but in this petition what the Court considers, in the

interest of justice, is that while quashing the order dated 22.02.2021,

respondent no. 1 should be directed to consider the candidature of the

petitioner on the date when he made the application, not on the date

when Selection Committee considered it.

14. The impugned order dated 22.02.2021 is quashed. The

respondent no.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the

award, keeping in view his eligibility on the date, when he submitted

application for that purpose.

15. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.03.2021 Ankit/