Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/903/2024 on 5 June, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPSS No.903 of 2024
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing Counsel
for the State.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Petitioner has challenged the order dated
02.05.2024, passed by respondent no.3, annexure-
1 to the writ petition, whereby the services of the
petitioner have been terminated.
5. The facts of the case are that the petitioner
was initially appointed on the post of Assistant
Teacher in Junior High School on 25.11.1999 in a
recognized Non-government Aided Junior High
School. The institution was subsequently
provincialized in the year 2014 and the services of
the petitioner were absorbed against the post
created by the respondent-State on 26.05.2014.
On certain inquiry having been done, it was found
that the petitioner was possessing 'Shiksha
Visharad' from Hindi Sahitya Samalen and it was
not a valid qualification for being appointed as
Assistant Teacher, Primary School. Consequently,
the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet and he
was proceeded in a departmental proceeding which
ultimately resulted into termination of service vide
impugned termination order dated 02.05.2024.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that in the year 2017, a direction was
issued by the State under the hands of Director of
Primary Education wherein it has been stated that
those candidates who do not have the qualification,
they can obtain the qualification i.e. D.El.Ed
through NIOS latest by 31.03.2019. These
directions were issued as per the amendment
incorporated under the Right to Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (as amended
in 2017).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner enrolled in the NIOS in
the year 2017 and has already passed examination
and at present, he is having a qualification of
D.El.Ed. which is a valid qualification for
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher
Primary School. He also submits that a termination
of the petitioner after having been put in 25 years
of regular service with the respondent-department
is harsh, illegal and highly arbitrary and the same
cannot sustain.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that since the petitioner has been terminated after
the departmental proceedings, therefore, no
interim relief can been given to the petitioner. He
further relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
& others vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & others;
reported in (2009) 17 SCC 555 to buttress his
argument and submits that the termination order
should not be interfered with by passing any
interim order as the same would amount to final
relief.
9. Having considered the rival submission of the
parties and having gone through the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case and considering the
facts that the petitioner has put in 25 years of
regular service with the respondent-department, he
cannot be thrown out in such a manner by saying
that the degree which he was holding at the time of
induction in service is a forged one or invalid,
particularly, when the petitioner after 2017 under
the orders of the respondent-department has
obtained a degree of D.El.Ed from NIOS.
10. I do not find any force in the argument
submitted by learned State Counsel.
11. Learned State Counsel prays for and is
granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
12. Thereafter, two weeks' time is granted to the
petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.
13. List on 22.08.2024.
14. In the meantime, the impugned order dated
02.05.2024, passed by respondent no.3 shall
remain stayed.
15. Interim relief application (IA No.1/2024)
stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.06.2024
AK
