Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2269/2019 on 8 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 2269 of 2019
BETWEEN:
Munesh Pal ... Petitioner
(Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others ... Respondents
(By Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand)
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner participated in a selection for the
post of Primary School Teacher conducted at the State
level by State Council for Education, Research &
Training. According to petitioner, allocation of districts
to successful candidates was to be made, based on
their score of marks and option, given by them.
Petitioner was selected and he was allotted District
Dehradun, which was a district of second choice of the
petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, as per his score
of marks, he ought to have been allotted District
Haridwar, which was his first choice. He further
contends that candidates with lesser score of marks
were allotted District Haridwar, as such, denial of
district of first choice to the petitioner is unjust.
3. Petitioner had earlier filed writ petition, which
was disposed of with a direction to the Competent
Authority to take decision on petitioner's
representation.
4. Pursuant to the said order, Competent
Authority has rejected petitioner's representation vide
order dated 22.12.2016 on the ground that no vacancy
is available in District Haridwar and further that if
district allotted to petitioner is changed now, it will
disturb the entire chain of allotment of districts.
5. Learned counsel for the State has raised
question of delay and latches and he submits that
impugned order was passed in the year 2016, while
present writ petition was filed after three years in the
year 2019. He further submits that petitioner was
initially satisfied and after three years he woke up for
challenging the impugned order.
6. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for
petitioner has referred to certain judgments rendered in
similar petitions filed by candidates, who were not
allotted district of their first choice. Mr. Saini submits
that certain candidates, who were below the petitioner
in merit list, have now allotted District Haridwar,
pursuant to direction of this Hon'ble Court. He further
submits that after completion of selection process, in
the year 2014, there were as many as 11 available
vacancies on the post of Primary School Teachers. He
further submits that after subsequent selection made in
the year 2016 also, certain posts remained unfilled and
presently there are large number of vacancies on the
post of Teacher in different Government Primary
Schools in District Haridwar. He, therefore, submits that
rejection of petitioner's representation on the ground
that no vacancy is available, is flawed.
7. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice,
it is provided that Director, Elementary Education shall
reconsider petitioner's claim for allotment to District
Haridwar as per his merit and option, subject to
availability of vacant posts in District Haridwar, and
pass appropriate order, as per law, within six months.
8. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is
disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Aswal
