Uttarakhand High Court
Kunwar Pal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 29 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3242-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No.507 of 2015
Kunwar Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others ... Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Subhash Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Vashistha, learned Standing Counsel for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Devansh Kasushik, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
Petitioner has challenged selection and
appointment of respondent nos.5 & 6 as teacher in
Rastriya Inter College, Rohalki, Bahadrabad, Haridwar,
which is a Government aided institution. The sole
ground of challenge is that respondent nos.5 & 6 were
not having the required experience and the experience
certificate produced by them for seeking appointment
were not as per the prescribed norms.
2. Perusal of the record reveals that management of
the aforesaid institution issued an advertisement on
02.08.2014 inviting applications for one post of Lecturer
(Physics) and twelve vacancies on the post of Assistant
Teacher LT Grade. Respondent nos.5 & 6 were appointed
as Assistant Teacher LT Grade on the recommendation
of selection committee. Annexure 4 to the writ petition is
the complaint made by the petitioner to the District
Magistrate Haridwar in which it is alleged that the
2025:UHC:3242-DB
experience certificate produced by respondent nos.5 & 6
was not in the prescribed format and the relevant
information regarding their past services was also not
supplied by respondent nos.5 & 6. Learned State
Counsel however has drawn attention of this Court to
the inquiry report submitted by District Education
Officer (Secondary) to the Chief Education Officer,
Haridwar, which is page 32 of the writ petition. In the
said report District Education Officer has opined that
respondent nos.5 & 6 had earlier served in different
Government aided educational institutions and there is
no reason to disbelieve the experience certificate
produced by them.
3. Since the competent authority has examined the
veracity of the claim regarding experience made by
respondent nos.5 & 6 and found that they had requisite
teaching experience, therefore, this Court does not find
any reason to interfere with the appointment of
respondent nos.5 & 6, which was made in 2015, at this
belated stage. In such view of the matter, the writ
petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
29.04.2025
Arti
ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH
Date: 2025.04.30 16:07:38 +05'30'
