SPA/69/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 1458 UK

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

                       SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2023
                                23RD MAY, 2023
BETWEEN:
Tejpal Singh Chauhan                                             .....Appellant.
And

State of Uttarakhand & others                                    ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General.

The Court made the following:

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

The appellant has preferred the present special

appeal with the delay of 752 days. The explanation furnished

by the appellant to explain the delay is that, he had entrusted

the file to one Advocate namely Mr. Sushant Pandey in

Dehradun for filing the appeal after the impugned judgment

was rendered by the learned Single Judge on 14.02.2019.

The appellant claims that the said Advocate took his

signatures on Vakalatnama and some other pages along with

the advance money and promised to file the special appeal

before this Court. The appellant claims that he called the said

counsel, who informed the appeal had been filed, and was

pending in this Court, and he was informed that the date of

hearing would be informed as and when fixed. He claims that

only in January, 2023, when a relative of the appellant

searched the case online, he learnt that the appeal had not

been preferred.

2. There is no averment that any action has been

taken by the appellant against Mr. Sushant Pandey. It is very

convenient for a party to make allegations against a counsel

behind his/ her back. We are not satisfied with the

explanation furnished by the appellant to explain the

enormous delay of 752 days.

3. Even on merits, we find no substance in the

present appeal. The claim for promotion made by the

appellant was turned down by the respondents on the ground

that he did not have the minimum qualification of

intermediate for promotion from Group 'D' to Group 'C' post.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant

is that the appellant had filed the supplementary affidavit in

the writ petition, which had not been considered. Learned

counsel had drawn our attention to the said supplementary

affidavit. It is stated therein that the appellant had cleared

the examination in the year 2006 conducted by the Bhartiya

Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, which was considered as

equivalent to Intermediate, i.e. 12th standard examination. At

the same time, the appellant states that this Court had held

that the 12th standard examination certificate issued by the

said Institution, namely Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, is not

valid.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant

is that since he had obtained the certificate in the year 2006,

and the judgment of this Court was rendered in 2009, it

would not apply to this case.

6. We find absolutely no merit in this submission.

Firstly, it is clear that the appellant did not inform his

employer that he had obtained any such certificate from the

Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, as the respondents claimed that

the appellant was not an intermediate. Moreover, the

judgment of this Court holding that the certificates issued by

the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad are not recognized and not

valid, would apply to all such cases, whether issued before or

after the date of the judgment.

7. We accordingly find no merit in this appeal, and the

same is dismissed.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.) Dated: 23rd May, 2023 NISHANT