SPA/132/2020
2022 Latest Caselaw 747 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  SPA No.132 of 2020
                                  Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.
                                  Shri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.

Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-State. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for respondent no.1-College.

Dr. K.H. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

The State of Uttarakhand has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 02.11.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPMS No.2595 of 2019, DAV (PG) College v. State of Uttarakhand and others.

The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, has allowed the Writ Petition (M/S) Nos.1027 of 2019 and 1028 of 2019, and thereby, the orders/ letters dated 10.9.2018, 12.10.2018 and 11.02.2019 were quashed, and certain directions were given. Consequent upon quashing of those five orders challenging the selection and appointment, the order at paragraph no.17 of the judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby, Writ Petition (M/S) No.2595 of 2019 (which is under challenge in this appeal) was disposed of directing that so far as release of salary and arrears of the appointment law and B.Ed. faculty is concerned, petitioners are entitled to get the salary from 01.11.2019. This order is a consequence of the order passed in the preceding paragraphs of the judgment.

Since the original orders, so passed by the learned Single allowing Writ Petition (M/S) Nos.1027 of 2019 and 1028 of 2019, have not been challenged, and a part thereof is raised by the State Government contending that, the selection and appointments were made without the approval granted by the State Government, has been negated by the learned Single Judge, thus, the impugned order, challenging only the paragraph no.17 of the impugned judgment, will be ineffective.

In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pending application, if any, is disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (S.K. Mishra, ACJ.) 14.03.2022 Rdang