Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/85/2018 on 20 March, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CLCON No. 85 of 2018
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Abishek Sati, Advocate holding brief
of Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel
for the State of Uttarakhand.
WPSS No. 528 of 2017 filed by petitioner
was decided in terms of judgment dated
09.10.2017 rendered in WPMS No. 1871 of 2017.
Relevant extract of judgment rendered in WPMS
No. 1871 of 2019 are reproduced below:-
"6. In view of the above, the writ petitions are
allowed. A mandamus is hereby issued to the
respondent authorities that where the process has
been completed and recommendation has been given
to the Education Authority, let the recommendation be
acted upon.
7. It is, however, made clear that this Court has
only observed that Model Code of Conduct will not
come in their way. It does not mean that if there is
any other shortcoming or illegality in the selection
process, the respondent authorities will in any manner
be restrained from passing appropriate orders.
However, let the needful be done as expeditiously as
possible but preferably within a period of four weeks
from the date of production of a certified copy of this
order."
It is not in dispute that the order passed in
WPMS No. 1871 of 2017 was modified by
Division Bench in SPA No. 983 of 2018 vide order
dated 20.08.2019. Operative portion of the said
judgment are extracted below:-
"69. The appellant-writ petitioner in Special Appeal
No.528 of 2019, however, stands on a different
footing. All that has happened in that case is that an
advertisement has been issued, and applications were
invited pursuant thereto. The appellant therein had
merely submitted her application form, and nothing
more. Since quality point marks, as prescribed under
the pre-amended Regulations, have not been
awarded, the applicant would not know whether or
not she would fall within the ratio of 1:7 to be short-
listed for interview. The petitioner cannot claim any
right, therefore, for her candidature to be considered
only in terms of the pre-amended Regulations. In this
context it is useful to note that, in Dhirendra Sundar
Das [15], the Supreme Court held that the
respondents, who had merely been recommended by
their respective departmental authorities, could not be
considered to be 'eligible' for appointment by way of
promotion or selection under the erstwhile
Regulations, since the steps set out in the Regulations
had not been completed prior to the repeal of the old
Rules i.e. (i) Regulation 7-preparation of a list of
suitable candidates by the Selection Board; (ii)
Regulation 8-consultation with the Orissa Public
Service Commission; (iii) Regulation 9-
recommendation of the Orissa Public Service
Commission; and (iv) Regulation 10-preparation and
placement of final list before the State Government
for appointment; and the respondents had not
acquired an accrued or vested right of selection or
promotion to posts in accordance with the old Rules,
since their names had never been considered for
selection or promotion beyond the stage contemplated
under Regulation 6.
70. In the present case also, no further action was
taken, prior to the 2017 amendment to the 2009
Regulations, except to receive applications pursuant
to the advertisement. Mere receipt of applications,
without anything more, would not confer any right on
the applicant-appellant to claim that she should be
considered only in terms of the pre-amended 2009
Regulations. Her entitlement to be considered, if at
all, can only be in terms of the Regulations in force
i.e. the 2017 amendment to the 2009 Regulations.
71. As a result Special Appeal No. 983 of 2018,
Special Appeal No. 1004 of 2018 and Special Appeal
No. 27 of 2019 are allowed, and the respondents are
directed to issue call letters to the short-listed
candidates therein, and conduct interviews, in terms
of the pre-amended 2009 Regulations at the earliest
and, in any event, within three months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this order. All the
other Special Appeals i.e. Special Appeal No. 683 of
2018, Special Appeal No. 763 of 2018, Special Appeal
No. 951 of 2018, Special Appeal No. 221 of 2019,
Special Appeal No. 236 of 2019, Special Appeal No.
298 of 2019 and Special Appeal No. 528 of 2019, are
dismissed. The process of selection, for appointment
to the posts of Lecturers and Assistant Teachers (L.T.
Grade) in these private aided institutions, shall be
held in terms of the 2017 amendment to the 2009
Regulations with utmost expedition, preferably within
four months from the date of production of a certified
copy of the order. No costs.
It is not the case of the petitioner that
Selection Committee had recommended the
name of petitioner for appointment. In the
absence of any recommendation in favour of
petitioner, no right had accrued in his favour in
terms of judgment rendered by Division Bench of
this Court.
Merely because petitioner participated in
the selection will not entitle him for appointment.
Thus, this Court does not find any reason to
proceed against the opposite parties for
contempt of order passed by writ court.
Accordingly, contempt petition is closed.
Notice issued to the opposite party is hereby
discharged.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
20.03.2023
Aswal
