Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/127/2022 on 13 June, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
Delay Condoantion Application (I.A. No. 2 of 2022)
Leave to Appeal (I.A. No. 3 of 2022)
In
SPA No. 127 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the
State/appellant.
Mr. B.M. Pingal & Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, Advocates for
respondent no. 1.
Mr. Vikram Singh Dhapola, Advocate, holding brief of
Mr. Ramjis Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no. 4.
For the reasons indicated in application for leave to
appeal, the same is allowed. Leave is granted to file the
appeal to appellant.
As per office report, there is delay of 9 days in filing
this appeal.
Learned counsel for respondents very fairly submits
that they have no objection, if the delay condonation
application is allowed.
Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed
and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard on merits.
This appeal has been filed by Director General,
Medical Education, Uttarakhand with an application for Leave
to Appeal, as he was not party before Writ Court.
Challenge has been thrown by appellant to final order
dated 14.01.2022 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 107 of
2022. Relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below:-
"This writ petition is being disposed of with a
direction to the respondent nos.2 and 3, to take a decision
on the representation which has been preferred by the
petitioner, with regards to her prayer to enable her to join as
Tutor (Nursing) in pursuance to her selection made on
19.08.2021 and while taking a decision on the
representation of the petitioner, the pendency of the
criminal proceedings may not be specifically taken as to be
creating any bar at this stage to deprive the petitioner to join
her services, as a consequence of the decision to be taken
on the representation.
But however, her joining into the services, if at all, it
is done in pursuance to the decision taken on the
representation of the petitioner, that will obviously abide by
the judgment to be rendered in criminal proceedings by the
competent courts.
It is expected that respondent nos.2 & 3 will take a
decision on the representation of the petitioner at the
earliest, and at the most within a period of four weeks from
the date of presentation of the certified copy of this
judgment.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
From perusal of record, it is revealed that writ-
petitioner participated in a selection for the post of Tutor
(Nursing) conducted by Uttarakhand Medical Service
Selection Board. Since she was not appointed, even though
she was declared as successful in selection, therefore, she filed
writ petition.
It was contended by writ-petitioner (respondent no. 1)
that since her name figure in an FIR registered by her sister-
in-law against brother of writ-petitioner, in respect of a
matrimonial dispute, therefore claim of writ-petitioner for
appointment is not being considered.
In this backdrop, Writ Court disposed of the writ
petition with a direction to Director General, Medical Health
and the Selecting Body, to take decision on writ-petitioner's
representation regarding her joining on the post of Tutor
(Nursing), within four weeks from date of presentation of
certified copy of final order.
Appellant contends in this appeal that Director General,
Medical Education, alone is competent to take decision
regarding petitioner's appointment/joining as Tutor (Nursing),
however, Writ Court issued direction to Director General,
Medical Health, who is not competent for the purpose.
Appellant further contended that Writ Court has decided the
writ petition filed by respondent no. 1, behind the back of
appellant, who was the competent authority.
Since learned Single Judge has not gone into merits of
the claim of writ-petitioner for appointment and learned
Single Judge has directed only for taking decision on
representation made by writ-petitioner, therefore, we are not
inclined to interfere with the direction issued by Writ Court, to
take decision on representation made by writ-petitioner.
However, having regard to the contention raised by
appellant that he alone is competent to take decision in the
matter, we give liberty to writ-petitioner to make
representation to Director General, Medical Education,
Uttarakhand regarding her appointment as Tutor (Nursing). If
writ-petitioner makes fresh representation, within three weeks
from today, Director General, Medical Education shall
consider the same and pass appropriate order, as per law,
within three weeks thereafter.
It goes without saying that Director General, Medical
Education shall consider writ-petitioner's representation and
pass order on merits, untrammelled by any observation made
by this Court or learned Writ Court.
With the aforesaid observation, Special Appeal stands
disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
13.06.2022
Navin
