WPSS/3493/2018
2025 Latest Caselaw 6103 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSS/3493/2018 on 4 December, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

             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. 3493 of 2018
                                      Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Tarun Mohan and Mr. Hargovind Pant, learned Brief Holder for State.

3. By the instant petition, petitioner is praying for following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 04.05.2018 passed by respondent no. 4 (contained as Annexure No. 14 to this writ petition).

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary, which has been fixed after giving pay protection.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears of salary from February, 2018.

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.06.2018 passed by respondent no. 4 and contained as Annexure No. 15 to this writ petition"

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that recruitment process commenced in the year 2013 and one of eligibility for appointment was that incumbent should be TET qualified. He further submits that petitioner was not having TET, at the relevant time, though subsequently, on 31.12.2019, she qualified the TET examination.

5. He further submits that in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Kant and another Vs. State of U.P. and others in SLP (C) No. 22164 of 2024 decided on 31.10.2025, the incumbents, who obtained the TET Certificate on or before 31.03.2019, were held to be eligible for appointment and their appointment shall not be disturbed. He fairly submits that petitioner obtained the TET certificate after the aforesaid cut off date and as such, she is not eligible for the appointment.

6. Be that as it may, at the relevant petitioner was not eligible in respect of the selection process commenced in the year 2013, since she was not having TET, therefore, present writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that since now the petitioner is TET qualified, and as such eligible for future selection.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 04.12.2025 SKS