Uttarakhand High Court
Prema Kumari Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
1. Writ Petition (S/S) No.1908 of 2022
Prema Kumari Joshi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
2. Writ Petition (S/S) No.906 of 2022
Arvind Kumar ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
3. Writ Petition (S/S) No.909 of 2022
Vijay Kumar ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
4. Writ Petition (S/S) No.85 of 2023
Mridula Bhatt ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
5. Writ Petition (S/S) No.1952 of 2023
Yogendra Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. D.K. Tyagi and Mr. Brahm Dev, learned counsel for
the petitioner(s) in WPSS Nos.1908, 906 & 909 of 2022
and WPSS No.1952 of 2023.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner in
WPSS No.85 of 2023.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. along
with Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Since common question of law is involved in
all these writ petitions, hence, they are taken up and
decided by this common judgment. For the sake of
brevity, the facts of WPSS No.1908 of 2022 are taken
into consideration.
2. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a
writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
appointment order dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure No.3 to
the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.3 and
with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus by directing the respondents to give effect
to the appointment order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure
No.2 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.3
and in turn to permit the petitioner to join the post as
per the appointment order dated 31.05.2022.
3. The facts in the nutshell are that the
petitioner completed her Bachelor of Education Degree
in the year 2006, and, subsequently, the petitioner also
qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.). The
petitioner was awarded the said certificate in the year
2012. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the
certificate issued to the petitioner was having a validity
of 7 years i.e. it was valid up to the year 2018. The
respondents, by the impugned order, have given
appointment to the other candidates, whereas, the
petitioners were denied appointment, despite being
successful in the examination, on the sole ground that
the T.E.T. certificate held by the petitioners was not
valid on the date of advertisement, hence, these writ
petitions.
4. State has filed its counter affidavit, in which,
it has been averred that since the petitioners were not
having the valid UTET certificate on the date of
advertisement, hence, the petitioners cannot be
accorded the benefit of Office Memorandum dated
20.06.2021.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the documents available on record. It is
not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of
T.E.T. Certificate duly awarded to them by the State
Government. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that
the T.E.T. Certificate earlier issued to the petitioners
was having the validity of 7 years i.e. from 2012 to
2018. However, the State Government, by virtue of
Office Memorandum dated 28.06.2021 made an
amendment to Clause-6 of Para-4 of the Government
Order dated 04.03.2016, governing the field, whereby,
the validity of T.E.T. certificate has been extended from
7 years to lifetime w.e.f. 11.02.2011. Since, the First
T.E.T. examination was held by the State in the year
2011 pursuant to the guidelines dated 11.02.2011; the
cut-off date has been fixed as 11.02.2011, meaning
thereby all the T.E.T. Certificates have been made
applicable and valid for lifetime.
6. Since, the T.E.T. Certificate issued to the
petitioners by the State Government was earlier having
the validity of 7 years, which was subsequently
extended for lifetime, therefore, the respondents have
erred in law in not according the benefit of the said
Office Memorandum dated 28.06.2021 to the
petitioners. The State cannot be permitted to adopt pick
and choose policy for the candidates.
7. It needs to be mentioned that the Office
Memorandum dated 28.06.2021 clearly stipulates that
the said amendment giving lifetime recognition would
be applicable with retrospective effect and the said
amendment would be made applicable w.e.f.
11.02.2011. This clearly stipulates that the T.E.T.
certificate issued to the petitioners in the year 2011,
would also get the benefit of amendment and it would
be deemed to have lifetime recognition in case of
petitioners as well.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, all these writ
petitions are allowed in the following terms:
A. In WPSS No.1908 of 2022, a writ of mandamus is
issued directing the respondents to give effect to the
appointment order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure No.2
to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.3
and in turn to permit the petitioner to join the post
as per the appointment order dated 31.05.2022.
B. In WPSS Nos.906 of 2022 and 909 of 2022, a writ in
the nature of certiorari is issued by quashing the
impugned orders dated 18.04.2022 passed by
respondent No.3 and permit them to join on the post
of Assistant Teacher, Primary School, as per the
appointment orders dated 11.04.2022 and
16.04.2022.
C. In WPSS Nos.85 of 2023 and 1952 of 2023, the
respondent No.3-State is directed to give
appointment to the petitioners by issuing
appointment orders to them and permit the
petitioners to join the post at the earliest, but not
later than eight weeks' from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
9. No order as to costs.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
20.03.2024
PN
