SPA/542/2018
2023 Latest Caselaw 1386 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL
        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

                 SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 542 OF 2018

                             18TH MAY, 2023

Between:

Committee of Management, Adams
Girls Inter College, Almora & another ......                 Appellants

and

Km. Beena Kanojia & others                  ......          Respondents


Counsel for the appellants       :   Mr. Anil   Kumar    Joshi,   learned
                                     counsel

Counsel for the respondents      :   Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
                                     Advocate General for the State /
                                     respondent No. 2



The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)


Delay Condonation Application No. 9908 of 2018


             None appears for respondent No. 1, when the

matter is called out.


2)           There is delay of 19 days in filing the present

appeal.


3)           We have heard learned counsels, and gone

through the application.
                               2




4)         For the reasons stated in the application, the

delay is condoned.      The delay condonation application is,

accordingly, allowed.


Special Appeal No. 542 of 2018


5)         The prayer sought by the respondent No. 1 /

writ petitioner in the writ petition was for a direction to the

appellant herein to give appointment to her / reinstate her

on the post of Clerk in the Adams Girls Inter College,

Almora.


6)         The writ petition was disposed of by the

following order :


           "Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

           Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Brief Holder for the State.

           The petitioner was appointed as Clerk on P.T.A.
     basis.   The claim of the petitioner was not considered
     for regular appointment only on the ground that the
     regular vacancies were not available.

           Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with
     the direction to the respondents to consider the case of
     the petitioner for the post of Clerk as and when vacancy
     arises, taking into consideration his experience."


7)         The submission of learned counsel for the

appellants is that the services of respondent No. 1 had

been dispensed with on 05.11.2003. The impugned order
                               3




was passed after nearly 15 years of her services being

dispensed with.      He submits that the respondent No. 1,

therefore, may not be eligible for being appointed even if

vacancy arises.


8)           On a plain reading of the impugned order, it is

clear to us, that the same merely required the appellant to

consider the candidature of the respondent No. 1 for the

post of Clerk, as and when vacancy arises.           It does not

mean that the appellant has been directed to positively

grant appointment to respondent No. 1 de hors the rules.

It goes without saying, that only if respondent No. 1

makes her application against an advertisement issued for

the post of Clerk by the appellant, her candidature may be

considered     in   accordance    with    the   rules,   and   not

otherwise.


9)           With this clarification, we dispose of the appeal.


10)          All pending applications also stands disposed of.



                                            ________________
                                           VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.



                                         ________________
                                         RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Dt: 18th MAY, 2023 Negi