Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/434/2022 on 5 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
AND
SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.
5TH DECEMBER, 2022
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 434 OF 2022
Between:
Pradeep and another. .......Appellants.
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. S.S. Yadav.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand/ respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for
respondent No. 5.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
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. 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.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________
R.C. Khulbe, J.
Dt: 5th December, 2022
Rathour
