Uttarakhand High Court
Shri Harish Chand vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 29 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3223-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 81 of 2025
Shri Harish Chand ...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ... Respondents
Mr. Krishna Mohan Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Brief Holder, for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
(Per: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
This intra-Court appeal is filed
challenging the judgment and order dated
24.3.2025, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1300
of 2024. By the said order, writ petition filed by the
appellant was dismissed. Operative portion of the
impugned judgment is reproduced below:
"3. In the first petition, the Court while
allowing the writ petition observed:-
"29 ............................The State
must examined the certificate of
the petitioner and all the
qualifications and if they are in
order, grant him appointment order
forthwith. It is made clear that the
appointment of the petitioner shall
also be from the same date as is
given to those candidates who have
been selected in the selection
process. It is further made clear
that the petitioner shall get the
salary from the date he joins an
institution and shall not be entitled
for back-wages.
2025:UHC:3223-DB
30. In the light of the discussions
and observations made above, writ
petition stands allowed.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another
petition bearing Writ Petition (S/S) No.
404 of 2022, Harish Chandra Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others ("the second
petition") for fixation of the salary from
the date when other candidates
participated in the selection process and
given appointment. The second petition
was dismissed on 21.11.2023. The Court
then observed "The prayer for
monetary benefit and fixation of the
salary appears to be fallacious and
misconstrued and the same cannot
be granted to the petitioner.
However, no other prayer has been
made by the petitioner regarding the
pre-fixation of his date of
appointment; therefore, no relief can
be granted to him for the same."
5. Thereafter instant petition has been
filed.
6. In essence, what the petitioner seeks
is, enforcement of this Court's judgment
dated 13.09.2017 passed in the first
petition. In order to get the fruit of the
order passed in this writ petition, another
petition may not be entertained. There
are other provisions for enforcing the
orders of this Court. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that instant petition is not
2025:UHC:3223-DB
maintainable. Accordingly, the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. The writ petition is dismissed."
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has
drawn attention of this Court to the judgment dated
13.9.2017, passed in appellant's Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 1765 of 2016. Para 29 of the said judgment is
extracted below:
"29. All the same, the second prayer of
the petitioner which is for quashing of the
advertisement although cannot be
granted at this stage as this Court has
been informed that the selection process
has already been completed and required
candidates have already been selected
and appointed. However, considering that
the petitioner stands to be qualified, a
further mandamus is hereby issued to
consider the candidature of the petitioner
treating him to be qualified on the basis
of his two years Diploma in Elementary
Education, which he has obtained from
outside the State. The State must
examine the certificate of the petitioner
and all the qualifications and if they are in
order, grant him appointment order
forthwith. It is made clear that the
appointment of the petitioner shall also
be from the same date as is given to
those candidates who have been selected
in the selection process. It is further
made clear that the petitioner shall get
2025:UHC:3223-DB
the salary from the date he joins an
institution and shall not be entitled for
back-wages."
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant
submits that appellant was denied appointment as
Assistant Teacher, Primary School only on the
ground that two years Diploma, which he
possessed, was obtained from an institute situate
outside the State of Uttarakhand. Appellant
challenged denial of appointment by filing Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 1765 of 2016, which was allowed
and the authorities were directed to grant
appointment to the appellant from the same date
as is given to other persons, who were selected in
the selection process. He submits that appellant
was appointed only on 24.5.2019, while other
persons, who were selected in the same selection
process, were given appointment much earlier.
Thus he submits that petitioner should not be made
to suffer on account of confusion in the minds of
the authorities, due to which appellant was denied
appointment from the due date.
4. We find substance in the submission
made by learned Counsel for the appellant. Even
otherwise also, judgment rendered in Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 1765 of 2016 was challenged by the
State Govt., however, Special Appeal filed by the
State Govt. was dismissed. Thus the said judgment
has attained finality.
5. Even though the appellant has been
offered appointment, but it is from the later date,
2025:UHC:3223-DB
which is not strictly as per the direction issued by
the writ court. Learned Single Judge appears to
have overlooked this aspect of the matter, which
has resulted in dismissal of the writ petition.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the
special appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and direct the District Education Officer
(Elementary), District Udham Singh Nagar to
examine appellant's claim for appointment from the
date other persons, selected in the same selection
process, were appointed. District Education Officer
concerned shall pass necessary orders in this
regard within three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
7. It goes without saying that all persons,
whose seniority is likely to be affected, shall also be
given opportunity of hearing before passing the
order.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
29.4.2025
Pr
PRABOD
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50
602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503,
H KUMAR
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF8
06ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53
, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.30 16:39:14 +05'30'
