Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/95/2022 on 9 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA
AND
JUSTICE SRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2022
09th MAY, 2022
Between:
Smt. Kamini Gupta ...... Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Pankaj Chaturvedi and Mr. P.C.
Petshali, learned counsel
Counsel for respondent State : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State /
respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Counsel for respondent No. 4 : Mr. Mukesh Rawat, learned proxy
counsel on behalf of Mr. Ajay Veer
Pundir, learned counsel
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
JUDGMENT: (per the Acting Chief Justice Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra)
Heard learned counsel for the parties on delay
condonation application.
2
2) Delay Condonation Application has been filed
by the appellant for condoning the delay of seven days
in preferring the Special Appeal. Said application is
supported by the affidavit filed by the appellant Smt.
Kamini Gupta. The cause shown for delay is found
sufficient. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the
delay. The delay of seven days is hereby condoned.
Delay Condonation Application (I.A. No. 02 of 2022) is,
accordingly, allowed.
3) Also, heard the learned counsel for the parties
on Special Appeal.
4) In this intra-court appeal, the respondent No.
4 has assailed the final judgment passed by learned
Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 426 (S/S) of 2022,
whereby the orders of the Appellate Authority, i.e., the
Additional Director, Intermediate Education, Garhwal
Division, Pauri Garhwal, was set aside, and the mater
was remanded back to the learned Appellate Authority.
5) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant would argue that the only issue to be decided
in this appeal, after remand, is whether the Notification
3
dated 23.08.2010, issued by the National Council for
Teachers Education is applicable to the State of
Uttarakhand, and while remanding the case, the learned
Single Judge has made an observation that the
judgment of the Appellate Authority is erroneous as the
Notification dated 23.08.2010 is applicable to the State
of Uttarakhand?
6) However, it is brought to our notice that
though the Notification was brought on 23.08.2010, as
per the provisions contained therein, the Notification was
to be made applicable by the State Government by
formulating the Rules guiding the field, and the Rules
were framed in the year 2011. In the interregnum, the
respondent No. 4 (appellant before us) was selected and
appointed as a teacher.
7) Hence, we clarify that upon remand, the
learned Appellate Authority shall decide the issue
whether in the fact situation, a pre-requisite qualification
of passing T.E.T. as per Notification dated 23.08.2010,
shall be applicable to the case of the petitioner or not, as
the Rules were framed in the year 2011?
4
8) With such observation, the Special Appeal
stands disposed of.
9) Stay Application (IA No. 01 of 2022) also
stands disposed of.
___________________________
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J.
_____________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dt: 09th MAY, 2022
Negi
