WPSS/2851/2018
2022 Latest Caselaw 725 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                      AT NAINITAL
          ON THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                             BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

          Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2851 of 2018

BETWEEN:
Satish Chandra Bhatt                                 .......Petitioner
     (By Mr. Yogesh Pant, Advocate)


AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others.                       ...Respondent
     (Mr. Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 to
     4)



                           JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. According to the petitioner, in the year 2008, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T.) in a recognized unaided school, namely, Janta Higher Secondary School, Bhardar, Rudraprayag and the said school was subsequently taken in the grant-in-aid list of the State, in the year 2016.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that most of the teachers, who were regularly appointed in the said school before its inclusion in grant-in-aid list, were absorbed in the service of government aided school while petitioner was not so absorbed.

4. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged an order dated 18.05.2017 passed by Chief Education Officer, Rudraprayag. Perusal of the said order reveals that petitioner's claim for absorption is rejected on the ground that in the selection process held in 2008,

pursuant to which petitioner was appointed, only three applications were received, while Rules require minimum seven applications for holding selection.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two other candidates, who were also denied absorption on same ground, were subsequently absorbed as L.T. Grade Teacher, namely, Mr. Anil Dev and Mr. Ranjit Singh. Thus, petitioner has alleged that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination, as other similarly situate persons were absorbed in service of Government aided school; while, petitioner was denied similar treatment.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and reasons, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if petitioner is permitted to make representation to Director, School Education, for redressal of his grievance, who shall examine the matter and take appropriate decision thereupon within some stipulated time.

7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to Director, School Education. If petitioner makes representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by Director, within three months from the date of receipt of representation, along with certified copy of this order.

8. Since this Court has not gone into merits of the case, therefore, this order will not preclude petitioner's right to approach this Court again.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin