Pramod Prasad Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 1051 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Pramod Prasad Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 4 June, 2024

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

        HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                  NAINITAL
              Writ Petition (S/S) No.466 of 2021


Pramod Prasad Joshi                                ........Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                      .....Respondents

Presence:-
     Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel and Mr.Anil Anthwal, learned
     counsel for the petitioner.
     Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of
     Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 to 5.
     Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.08.2019 (Annexure No.1), passed by Director of Elementary Education, Dehradun and consequential order dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure No.2), passed by Chief Education Officer, Tehri Garhwal and order dated 10.08.2019 (Annexure No.3) passed by Manager of Committee of Management, Janta Junior High School, Boliyadhar, Patti Hinduv, Tehsil Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal and further commanding the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits along with salary and continuity in service.

3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher, Language pursuant to advertisement dated 20.08.2006 with the respondent no.6-Committee of Management Janta Junior High School, Boliyadhar, Patti Hinduv, Tehsil Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal, a Non-Government Un-aided Institution by then. The Selection Committee has selected

the petitioner against the post of Assistant Teacher, Language and the papers relating his selection were sent for approval before District Education Officer, Tehri Garhwal, but at that time, no decision was taken on the papers relating to approval of the respondent No.6. The petitioner has passed B.Ed. examination in Academic Session-2006, mark sheet of B.Ed. examination was issued on 24.09.2007 and degree was issued on 30.06.2008, thus, on the day of commencement of Regulations framed by the NCTE for minimum qualification for the teachers, petitioner was having the requisite qualification. On 05.09.2014, District Education Officer has sent the paper for approval of appointment of petitioner to Chief Education Officer, Tehri Garhwal. The said communication dated 05.09.2014 was followed by reminder dated 04.02.2015, but no action was taken qua approval.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner filed a writ petition No.1820 of 2016(S/S), which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.04.2017 and Chief Education Officer was directed to take a final decision for approval on the communication dated 04.05.2015 by ignoring the inquiry held against the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from that day i.e.07.04.2017.

5. The said decision was put to challenge by filing a Special Appeal by respondent No.7 being SPA No.372 of 2018, Pravin Tiwari Vs. Pramod Prasad and Others. A Division Bench of this Court has confirmed the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and dismissed special appeal vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 by giving liberty to appellant to raise the question of

eligibility of respondent No.1 (petitioner herein) by making a representation to the Competent Authority i.e. Chief Education Officer, Tehri Garhwal within a period of three weeks from passing of that order i.e.11.10.2018.

6. In compliance to the direction sated above, the Chief Education Officer, Tehri Garhwal has granted the approval on 08.05.2017 to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher, Language in the Pay Scale of Rs.44900-99800. The petitioner submits his joining on 03.05.2018, and, since then, he is discharging his duties without any interruption and complaint. On 03.08.2019, the Director of Education has passed the impugned order and has concluded that the petitioner is not having the requisite qualification, therefore, cancelled his appointment. Hence this writ petition.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar controversy, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.3491 of 2018 (Mamta Sah vs. State of Uttarakhand & others) vide order dated 02.03.2022 has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent in that writ petition to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner in that case as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (General) in the light of Amended Act No.24 of 2017 and w.e.f. 07.03.2017. He further submits that the State Government feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court took up the matter in the Special Appeal No.385 of 2022 (State of Uttarakhand & others vs. Mamta Sah & another), which too was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 05.03.2024 and the judgment impugned in the special appeal has not been disturbed.

8. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the controversy involved in the aforesaid case is quite similar to the controversy involved in this case, therefore, this writ petition may also be decided on the same terms and conditions.

9. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the similarity of the aforesaid case.

10. In this view of the matter, taking parity of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal vide judgment and order dated 05.03.2024, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order. The impugned order dated 03.08.2019, passed by respondent no.3, consequential order dated 07.08.2019 passed by respondent No.4 and order dated 10.08.2019 passed by respondent No.6 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is reinstated in his service and he is entitled to get the approval and his claim for salary on regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of his appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Language) i.e. on 28.04.2018 after due approval or from the date, the institution was brought in grant in- aid, whichever is later; adjusting the salary, if any, already paid.

11. No order as to costs.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.06.2024 PN