Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1884/2021 on 6 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 1884 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Govind Prasad Maikhuri & another. ..........Petitioners
(By Mr. M.C. Pant and Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocates)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others. .....Respondents
(By Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand)
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed by Manager
of a government aided educational institution,
namely, Maa Chandika Devi Inter College, Maikhura,
District Chamoli. The relief sought in the writ petition
is as follows:
"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 22-07-2021 (Contained as
Annexure No.1) after calling the entire
records from the respondents and further
direct the respondents to grant approval to
selection conducted by the interview
committee on 05-04-2021 (Contained as
Annexure No.3 (Colly) or in alternate pass
any appropriate orders keeping in view of
the facts highlighted in the body of the
petition or mould the relief appropriately."
2. According to the petitioner, selection in the
aforesaid college was held for the post of Principal in
which three candidates were called for interview.
Regional Additional Director of Education, Pauri
declined to grant approval to the recommendation of
the Selection Committee on the ground that quorum
was not complete, as only two candidates were
interviewed by the Selection Committee.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that as many as three candidates were
called and all of them reported for interview on the
scheduled day and time, although, one of the
candidate returned without facing the interview
board. Thus, according to him, the reason assigned in
the impugned order is unsustainable.
4. Respondents have relied upon a provisoin in
Chapter 2 of the Regulations framed under School
Education Act for refusing to grant approval, which is
quoted in the impugned order. Said provision ordains
that if number of candidates, who present themselves
for interview, is less than three, then interview shall
be suspended and fresh date shall be notified to all
the candidates.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, in the present case, three candidates had
reported for interview on the scheduled date and
time; although, actual interview was held only in
respect of two candidates, therefore, the bar created
by aforesaid provision shall not be attracted in the
present case.
6. Learned Additional C.S.C. contends
otherwise and submits that since the number of
interviewed candidates is less than three, therefore,
the provision contained in the Regulations is
attracted.
7. After arguing for a while, learned counsel
for the petitioners confines his prayer and submits
that the Director, School Education be directed to
examine the matter and take appropriate decision, as
per law, at the earliest.
8. Learned Additional C.S.C. does not oppose
the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
with liberty to petitioners to make representation to
Director, School Education. If such representation is
made within two weeks from today, Director, School
Education shall take decision thereupon, in
accordance with law, within ten weeks' from the date
of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of
this order.
10. It goes without saying that, before taking
any decision, Director, School Education shall hear all
stakeholders in the matter.
11. It shall be open to petitioners to approach
this Court, after the decision taken on his
representation.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Arpan
