SPA/954/2017
2025 Latest Caselaw 976 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/954/2017 on 16 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                      2025:UHC:6181-DB
             Office Notes,
                reports,
               orders or
             proceedings
SL.
      Date   or directions                  COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
                  and
              Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                             SPA/954/2017

                             Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

1. Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. for the State/appellants

2. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Advocate for the respondent

3. There is delay of 151 days in filing this appeal.

4. For the reasons indicated in the Delay Condonation Application CLMA No.14702 of 2017, we condone the delay. Delay Condonation Application stands allowed.

5. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2017 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1102 of 2017. By the said judgment, writ petition was allowed and the authorities were directed to allocate the writ petitioner (respondent herein) to District Udham Singh Nagar by holding that persons who had scored lesser marks than her were allocated District Udham Singh Nagar.

6. Learned State Counsel submits that selection for the post of Assistant Teacher (Elementary Schools) was made on the criteria of seniority with reference to year of passing 2025:UHC:6181-DB B.Ed. examination and amongst two or more candidates, who have passed B.Ed. examination in the same year, then their score of quality point marks was to be seen.

7. He submits that the candidates belonging to Uttarakhand Female (General Category) who passed B.Ed. examination upto 2004 alone were allotted District Udham Singh Nagar while respondent had passed B.Ed. examination in the year 2005, therefore, her contention that candidates, who were placed below on the merit list, were also given District Udham Singh Nagar, is incorrect. He further submits that the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed on day one without even calling the counter affidavit or instructions, thus, the aforesaid aspect could not be placed before learned Single Judge.

8. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned counsel appearing for the respondent concedes that writ petition was allowed on the first day when it came up for preliminary hearing before the learned Single Judge.

9. Learned State Counsel has drawn our attention to ground 'D' in the memo of appeal where it is stated that last selected woman candidate in Udham Singh Nagar had scored 56.10155 quality points marks and she had passed B.Ed. examination in 2004.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that respondent had passed B.Ed.

2025:UHC:6181-DB examination in 2005, thus, the ground taken by learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition appears to be factually incorrect. In such view of the matter, impugned judgment is interferable.

11. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. However, respondent shall be at liberty to apply for transfer as she has reportedly completed five years at Almora.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.07.2025 16.07.2025 Rajni

RAJINI UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db4 8448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b 1f17d01342, postalCode=263001,

GUSAIN st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222 B4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F5 30616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.07.16 04:30:12 -07'00'