[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Pankaj Nautiyal & Others --Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 11 December, 2025
2025:UHC:11063-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
11 December , 2025
Special Appeal No.398 of 2025
Pankaj Nautiyal & Others --Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others --Respondents
Special Appeal No.400 of 2025
Bhaskar Mishra & Others --Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. C.S. Dalakoti, learned counsel for
the appellants
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State
Ms. NeetiRana, learned counsel for respondent no.3
Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hemant Pant, learned counsel for
the caveator.
--------------------------------------------------------------
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant; Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned
Additional C.S.C. for the State; Ms. NeetiRana, learned
counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hemant Pant, learned
2025:UHC:11063-DB
counsel for the caveator.
2. An advertisement came to be issued inviting
applications from persons eligible to be appointed as
Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools. It is the
case of the appellants that as per the advertisement, last
date for submission of application form was 28.11.2025 for
District Chamoli and 30.11.2025 for District Pithoragarh.
On the last date of submission of application form, the
appellant sought to have completed two years' Diploma in
Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.), which includes minimum
110 days' training and 02 days' Teaching Evaluation Test,
to be conducted by the Uttarakhand Education Board. It is
contended that the Petitioners/Appellants have completed
the 110 days training prior to the last date but the date of
conducting the T E T is yet to be announced and the last
day for submission of application has ended on 30th
November. Admittedly, the result is yetto be announced by
the concerned Board, meaning thereby, the appellants do
not possess the requisite qualification as on the cut-off
date.
3. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants that the learned Single Judge could have
2025:UHC:11063-DB
issued a mandamus to the Board to organize the Teaching
Evaluation Test within two days, and the time for filing of
application could have been extended. The said
submission, in our considered opinion, is unsustainable.
The date of examination of evaluation test is within the
exclusive domain of the Education Board, and this Court
neither has the expertise nor the domain to command the
Board to conduct the Test on a particular date or in a
particular manner; that being in the exclusive domain and
expertise of the Education Board, this Court cannot issue a
mandamus to the Authorities to conduct the examination in
a stipulated time and manner. It is not the case of the
Petitioners that the Authorities are remiss in discharging
their duties in a timely manner.
4. That apart, as rightly held by the learned Single
Judge, a person who do not possess the stipulated
qualification, cannot be permitted to challenge the
advertisement whereby the applications from eligible
persons were invited. The learned Single Judge has rightly
relied upon the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered
in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs.
Chander Shekhar and another, reported as (1997) 4
SCC 18.
2025:UHC:11063-DB
5. In our considered opinion, this appeal is wholly
misconceived. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same
stands dismissed.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 11.12.2025
Rajni
