Uttarakhand High Court
Committee Of Management vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 5 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.532 of 2023
Committee of Management, Kanya Junior High School,
Gujrada, Dehradun ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ........Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Anil K. Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, learned S.C. for the State.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of this writ petition, petitioner which
is the Committee of Management, Kanya Junior High
Schoool, Gujrada, Dehradun, has sought a writ of
mandamus directing respondent no.4 to grant approval of
selection for the post of Junior Assistant.
2. It is the case of petitioner that after seeking
due approval for advertising the post, an advertisement
was issued on 05.08.2022 in daily newspaper for the post
of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade, Woman, (Maths) and
Junior Assistant in General category. The selection for
the post of Assistant Teacher is not in dispute in this writ
petition and that selection has attained finality and the
appointment letter has already been issued to the
concerned teacher.
3. The controversy involved in the present writ
petition is regarding selection on the post of Junior
Assistant (General category). The process for selection is
only by interview, to be taken by a Selection Committee,
constituted under Sub-Section (3) of Section 37 of
Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 r/w Rule 18(a) of
Chapter II of Regulations of 2009. Pursuant to the aforesaid
advertisement, 203 persons submitted their application
forms for the said post. On scrutiny, 162 application
forms were found correct. Call letters were issued
accordingly, but only 113 persons turned up for
interview. After interview, a select list was prepared by
the Selection Committee on 15.10.2022 and was sent to
respondent no.4 on 20.10.2022 for approval. The select
list dated 15.10.2022, which is annexure No.5 to the writ
petition, contains 03 names, wherein person at Serial
No.1 Manish Chandra, S/o Sri Vishveshwar Prasad
Semwal, R/o 21/23 E.C. Road, Dehradun was found
selected by the Selection Committee. However, respondent
no.4 sat over the said list and thereafter, set up a Two
Member Committee to enquire into the selection process
vide letter dated 28.10.2022. When approval was not
given, petitioner has approached this Court.
4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent
wherein it is stated that on three complaints, an enquiry
committee was constituted and selection on the post of
Junior Assistant was enquired into by the said
Committee, and, therefore, approval could not be granted.
The enquiry committee constituted has submitted its
enquiry report which is annexed by the respondent-State
as Annexure No.5 to the counter affidavit. In the said
report, though there is nothing against petitioner-
Management and nothing substantial was found against
the petitioner but in Clause 1 of conclusion of report, it
has been pointed out that since there were only 60
students studying in school, there is no justification for
appointing a Junior Assistant and the advertisement
could have been re-considered. Apart from this, it is also
stated in the counter affidavit that there was a ban in
appointment in the recognized grant-in-aid schools vide
order dated 10.11.2022 issued by Director General of
School Education, Uttarakhand.
5. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by petitioner
wherein averments made in the writ petition have been
reiterated. However, it is submitted that the Enquiry
Committee exceeded its jurisdiction while enquiring into
the matter by saying that there was no justification in
appointment of Junior Assistant in the school with the
strength of 60 students. So far as ban is concerned, it is
stated by petitioner that the ban imposed vide order dated
10.11.2022 for appointment has been quashed by a
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
WPMS No.3231 of 2022 and batch, decided on
16.08.2023.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner
that from the counter affidavit which has been filed by the
State to controvert the case of petitioner, it is reflected
that in enquiry, nothing was found against petitioner-
institution on the complaint made by complainants Yash
Beriya and Ganesh Dhyani. It is further argued that the
enquiry committee has exceeded its limits while observing
that there was no justification for appointment of a Junior
Assistant in petitioner institution with a strength of 60
students. It is submitted by learned counsel that enquiry
was made only with regard to complaint made by above-
named complainants who raised question about the
interview.
7. So far as interview is concerned, enquiry report
is in favour of petitioner institution and therefore,
respondent no.4 should have immediately granted
approval on the recommendation sent by the Selection
Committee for the post of Junior Assistant.
8. Learned State counsel has argued his case on
the basis of averments made in the counter affidavit. He
does not dispute the fact that the ban imposed by the
respondent-Director General for appointment has been
set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 16.08.2023 (Supra).
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the material in the writ petition, it
appears that nothing was found against the petitioner-
institution in the enquiry which was conducted by a Two-
Member Committee by the orders of respondent no.4. It
is clear from the enquiry report that the observations
made by the Enquiry Committee regarding non-
justification of appointment of Junior Assistant is
completely against the fact that the advertisement was
issued after approval of respondent no.4 and the entire
selection process was done in accordance with the
provisions of Clause (3) of Section 37 of the School
Education Act, 2006 r/w Rule 18(a) of Chapter II of
Regulations of 2009.
10. The writ petition is thus allowed. A writ of
mandamus is issued to respondent no.4 to immediately
give approval to the select list dated 15.10.2022
(Annexure No.5) submitted by the Selection Committee to
the respondent no.4 for appointment on the post of
Junior Assistant, within a period not later than four
weeks from today.
11. No order as to costs.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.03.2024
R.Dang
