Uttarakhand High Court
Anil Singh vs Secretary Department Of ... on 23 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
23rd AUGUST, 2022
Special Appeal No.167 OF 2022
Anil Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
Secretary Department of Education State of
Uttarakhand, Dehradun & others
...... Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Ravindra Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri R. C. Khulbe, J.)
The present intra-court appeal has been
preferred by the appellant seeking to set aside the
judgement and order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition
No.1061 of 2020 "Anil Singh versus Secretary,
Department of Education, State of Uttarakhand,
Dehradun & others".
2. Put briefly, facts of the case are that pursuant
to the advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public
Service Commission on 06.01.2015 for filling up the
posts of Lecturers under the Secondary Education
Department, Government of Uttarakhand, the appellant
-writ petitioner offered his candidature and on the
recommendation of Selecting Body, petitioner was
offered appointment vide order dated 23.08.2016. The
appointment order specifically mentions that the
petitioner is required to join duties at the institution
mentioned against his name within twenty days and in
case of failure, his candidature would stand rejected
automatically.
3. It is the case of appellant that immediately
after receiving the appointment letter, he moved the
representation on 29.08.2016 seeking extension of time
to join his duties on the ground of ailment of his wife
and son which was of no avail. The appellant thereafter
moved further representations on 23.10.2017 and
thereafter on 01.01.2020. Vide order dated 21.07.2020
passed by the Director of Education, Uttarakhand,
Dehradun- respondent no.2 herein, the petitioner's
request for extension of joining time was turned down.
Assailing the order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the
respondent no.2, appellant-writ petitioner preferred the
writ petition, which has been dismissed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court vide the impugned order
dated 13.05.2022. Hence this appeal has been
preferred by the appellant challenging the order passed
by the learned Single Judge.
4. We have heard learned counsels for the
parties and gone through the entire material available
on record.
5. It is undisputed that the appellant was
required to join his duties within 20 days from the date
of issuance of appointment letter dated 23.08.2016,
which he did not do. The ground for rejecting the
2
petitioner's case is based on the Government Order
dated 26.08.2005. Paragraph No.3 whereof speaks that
the maximum joining time given to a selected candidate
is one month from the date of issuance of appointment
letter, which, in exceptional cases, will be extended for
another month. Paragraph no.4 of said Government
Order further provides that a candidate, who does not
join duties within time stipulated in the appointment
letter, his candidature shall be cancelled and the
vacancy shall be carried forward for future selection.
6. The first application was moved by the
petitioner on 29.08.2016 and the last application was
made by him on 01.01.2020, which is after a time gap
of more than 3½ years since the date of offer of
appointment. However, no plausible reasoning has been
given for such a long delay. Even otherwise, the
representation made by the appellant is in teeth of the
conditions of Government Order dated 26.08.2005
which deals with the issue in hand.
7. While examining the question, whether the
learned Single Judge was justified in passing the
impugned order, this Court must bear in mind that the
jurisdiction exercised both by the learned Single Judge,
as also the Division Bench in intra-court appeal, is
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
learned Single Judge is not a Court subordinate. In an
intra-court appeal, the Division Bench would refrain
from interference even if it is satisfied that the view
canvassed before it on behalf of the appellant, which is
different from the view which found acceptance with
3
the learned Single Judge, is more attractive. It is only
if the findings recorded in the order under appeal are
perverse, or the conclusions arrived at by the learned
Single Judge suffer from a patent illegality, would
interference, in an intra-court appeal, be justified. We
find no such infirmity in the order of the learned Single
Judge.
8. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The
appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 23rd August, 2022
Rdang
