Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Keshav Dutt Pat on 6 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
Special Appeal No.119 OF 2022
Dated: 6th June, 2022
State of Uttarakhand ...... Appellant.
Vs.
Keshav Dutt Pat ...... Respondent.
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing
Counsel.
Counsel for respondent no.1 : Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
Judgment: (per the Acting Chief Justice Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra)
In view of the order passed in Suo Motu Writ
Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, there is no delay in
preferring the present special appeal. Hence, the delay
condonation application (IA/2/2022) is dismissed as
infructuous.
2. In this intra-court appeal, appellant-State of
Uttarakhand has assailed a cryptic two-line order passed
by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No.3677 of 2017
(Keshav Dutt Pant v. State of Uttarakhand and others)
decided on 12.03.2020. We find it appropriate to quote
relevant portion of the said order which reads as
under:-
"Learned counsel for the parties have
submitted that identical controversy has been
decided by this Court vide judgment dated
07.12.2018 in WPSS No.524 of 2014 (Kailash
Singh Rawat Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others),
allowing the writ petition whereagainst the State
has filed a Special Appeal No.889 of 2019 (State
Vs. Kailash Singh Rawat and others) wherein the
Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the
appeal vide judgment dated 14.10.2019,
however, made a little modification that
respondents-writ petitioners would not be
entitled for arrears.
In view of the above, writ petition is
allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgments.
Impugned order dated 27.06.2013 qua the
petitioner is quashed. Respondents are directed
to promote the petitioner forthwith on the post
of Lecturer (Sanskrit)."
3. It is brought to our notice that earlier, a writ
application was filed by one Kailash Singh Rawat against
the State of Uttarakhand, which was registered as WPSS
No.524 of 2014 (Kailash Singh Rawat v. State of
Uttarakhand and others). The said case was decided in
favour of the petitioner therein. The State of
Uttarakhand assailed the order passed in the writ
petition before a Division Bench of this Court in Special
Appeal Nos.889 and 36 of 2019, however, those
appeals, vide judgment dated 14.10.2019 passed by a
Division Bench, were dismissed by modifying the order
passed in the writ petition to some extent. A special
leave petition, carried there-against, was also dismissed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.02.2021 in SLP(C)
No.27833 of 2019.
4. The present petitioner has filed the writ
petition on 27.12.2017.
2
5. In the present matter, the learned Chief
Standing Counsel, appearing for the State of
Uttarakhand, would submit that there were 10 posts of
Lecturers, and some of them are reserved for special
category(ies). In fact, they have taken a special plea in
paragraph no.3 of the counter affidavit which reads as
follows: -
"At present, in the said Institution there are
10 posts of Lecturer Cadre are sanctioned as per
report received from the Institution, against the
10 sanctioned posts of Lecturer, one post of
Lecturer Sanskrit and one post of Lecturer English
are vacant, which are earmarked for reserved
category. Thus the promotion of the petitioner,
on the post of Lecturer Sanskrit is not possible.
Copy of report dated 01.01.2018 of the
Institution is being annexed herewith and marked
as Annexure-C. A.-1 to this affidavit.
That the contents of para 2 of the writ petition
are admitted, hence call for no comments."
6. This issue was not considered at all by the
learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition
and issuing a positive direction (mandamus) to promote
the petitioner, before him, as Lecturer (Sanskrit). We
are of the opinion that a cryptic order, passed by the
learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in this
appeal, cannot sustain in the eyes of law, and the
matter requires to be re-heard and the issue relating to
reservation is also required to be considered as per law.
7. In that view of the matter, order dated
12.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge,
impugned in the present special appeal, is hereby set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single
Judge to decide the matter afresh in accordance with
3
law. The case be listed before an appropriate Bench
dealing with the service matters.
8. The special appeal as well as all pending
applications are disposed of.
_________________________
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J.
__ _______________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 6th June, 2022
RB
