Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/509/2018 on 13 March, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
13.03.2023 SPA No. 509 of 2018
Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
Sri Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Mr. Pradeep Joshi, the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/
appellants.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the
respondent/ writ petitioner.
The present Special Appeal is directed against
the judgment dated 22.02.2018 rendered by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1803 of
2014. The impugned judgment is short, and the same
reads as follows :-
"Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State.
The State Government has launched Special Drive
for filling up the posts of Assistant Teacher (Primary) on
the basis of the Notification dated 14.12.2011. The
maximum age prescribed therein was 40 years. The
advertisement was issued for the first time for filling up the
post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) by way of Special Drive
on 05.02.2014. The last date of the receipt of the
applications was 03.03.2014.
The petitioner also participated in the selection
process. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on
two grounds firstly, the petitioner has qualified T.E.T. in the
year 2013 and secondly, she was overage.
The amendment was carried out in the Special Drive
which was launched by way of the Notification dated
14.12.2011. The relaxation of three years was given by
treating amendment Part 10 integral part of the Notification
dated 14.12.2011. In other words, the candidates, who
have not yet attained the age of 43 years, were made
eligible. The petitioner has obtained essential educational
qualification before the cut-off date i.e. on 03.03.2014.
The case of the petitioner was covered by the Rules,
2013 wherein Part 10 was substituted and the maximum
age was increased to 43 years. The petitioner was eligible
and qualified to be considered for the post in question.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned
order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are
directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary)
under Special Drive, within a period of ten weeks from
today.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly."
The grievance of the appellants is that, while
passing the impugned judgment, the learned Single
Judge has not adverted to the detailed counter affidavit
filed by them in the writ proceedings. The stand of the
appellants was that the respondent/ writ petitioner was
overage on the date of the advertisement, and the
notification dated 20.07.2013, whereby the Rules were
amended, related only to trainee teachers, which the
respondent/writ petitioner was not. It was only the
trainee teachers, who have been given age relaxation
of three years by the aforesaid notification, and the
respondent was not covered in that category and was,
therefore, not entitled to the benefit of age relaxation,
as claimed by her.
We find that the aforesaid submission of the
appellants, which had been specifically taken in the
detailed counter affidavit filed in the writ proceedings,
has not been adverted to, and not discussed in the
impugned judgment.
That being the position, the impugned judgment,
in our view, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, set
aside the impugned judgment rendered by the learned
Single Judge, and remand the matter back to the
learned Single Judge for reconsideration of the Writ
Petition on merits in the light of the pleadings of the
parties.
Since, the matter has been pending since the
year 2014, we request the learned Single Judge to try
and dispose of the matter within the next six months.
The Special Appeal stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
Consequently, pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
13.03.2023 13.03.2023
Rahul
