Uttarakhand High Court
Saurav Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 March, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 27 of 2023
Saurav Panwar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Additional C.S.C. for the
State/respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent no.4.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated
01.09.2022, passed by the respondent no.2, Director, Intermediate
Education, Dehradun, by which the representation of the petitioner
has been rejected and order dated 08.05.2019, issued by the
respondent no.3, the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, has been
upheld, by which, order granting honorarium to the petitioner has been
cancelled.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the Chaudhary
Bharat Singh DAV Inter College, Jhabrera, Haridwar ("the College"),
there were two sanctioned posts of the Assistant Teacher LT (Vyayam)
and Assistant Teacher (Vayayam/Kala/PT). One Mr. Main Singh was
working as Assistant Teacher LT (Vyayam), who was to retire on
29.02.2016, therefore, the Management Committee on 03.01.2016
initiated the selection process and the interview was conducted on
28.01.2016. On 20.02.2016, the petitioner was offered an
appointment on a fixed honorarium of Rs. 2000/-. The petitioner
joined the position on 01.03.2016. Thereafter, the Government
collected the details of the PTA Teachers, a category to which the
petitioner belongs. On 06.05.2017, the respondent no.3, the Chief
Education Officer, Haridwar forwarded a list of the PTA Teachers and
at Serial No.4, the petitioner's name finds place in it. Subsequent to it,
by an order dated 23.05.2018 of the respondent no.3, the Chief
Education Officer, Haridwar, it was directed that the petitioner shall
get Rs.10,000/- per month honorarium for working as PTA Assistant
Teacher LT (Vyayam). This sanction was withdrawn on 08.05.2019 by
the respondent no.3, the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar on the
ground that the said approval was sought by concealment of fact that
another Teacher, Sushil Kumar had been working on the position
when the petitioner was appointed.
4. It is a case of the petitioner that thereafter, he filed a writ
petition, but meanwhile, Sushil Kumar was terminated from the
services. Therefore, on 13.06.2022, this Court in Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 1870 of 2019 ("the first petition"), gave a liberty to the petitioner to
make a representation to the Director, Secondary Education. The
petitioner did make a representation, which has been rejected by the
impugned order dated 01.09.2022. One of the grounds for rejecting
the representation is that, the recruitment of the PTA Teacher was
done in violation of the Government Order dated 21.12.2016.
5. The respondent no.4, the College as well as the State has
filed counter affidavits.
6. According to the counter affidavit of the State, the
approval for payment of honorarium to the petitioner had already been
cancelled on 08.05.2019. Thereafter, if any work is taken from him,
for that purpose the Management Committee is liable for payment of
honorarium. In fact, as such, nothing has been stated as to why
impugned order is correct.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
there were two positions of Teachers available in the College. On one
post Main Singh was working, who retired on 29.02.2016 and against
this vacancy, the process was initiated and the petitioner was
appointed. He would submit that on another position, one person
Sushil Kumar was working. He would submit that the continuation of
Sushil Kumar on another post had no effect on the selection of the
petitioner because there were two positions of the Assistant Teacher
LT (Vyayam) and Assistant Teacher (Vayayam/Kala/PT) in the college.
It is argued that the petitioner was paid honorarium by order dated
23.05.2018, but it was suddenly withdrawn by an order dated
08.05.2019 on the ground that one Sushil Kumar's regularization was
under process and this fact was concealed at the time when approval
was accorded for payment of honorarium to the petitioner. He would
submit that it is factually wrong. Both the positions are different. Even
otherwise, it is argued that now Sushil Kumar has already been
terminated and when pursuant to the first petition, the petitioner
made a representation, it has now been rejected on the ground that an
advertisement for the recruitment was made on 03.01.2016 which is
not proper because as per Government Order dated 21.12.2016, the
appointment has to be made in a transparent manner by giving an
opportunity to one and all.
8. Learned State counsel would submit that one Sushil
Kumar had already been working in the College and his regularization
process was underway when the recruitment of the petitioner was
made as PTA Teacher. It is submitted that before grant of approval,
this fact was not brought to the notice of the approving authority. It is
also submitted that an advertisement in the matter was issued prior
to existence of vacancy.
9. The Court, at this stage, wanted to know from learned
State counsel as to which provision bars the advertisement of vacancy
before the actual existence?
10. He would submit that an advertisement for recruitment
may only be published once there are clear vacancies.
11. In paras 7 and 8 of his petition, the petitioner has
categorically stated that there were another Assistant Teacher
(Vayayam/Kala/PT), Sushil Kumar who was working in the same
college. In para 4 of his petition, the petitioner categorically writes that
he was appointed against the vacancy that was created by virtue of
superannuation of one Main Singh. These facts are not denied in their
counter affidavits either by the respondent no.4, the College or by the
State.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner was recommended for grant of
honorarium of Rs.10,000/- by the respondent no.3, the Chief
Education Officer, Haridwar on 06.05.2017 and admittedly, on
23.05.2018, the respondent no.3, the Chief Education Officer,
Haridwar conveyed the approval of payment of Rs.10,000/- per month
honorarium to the petitioner. This has been subsequently, cancelled
by order dated 08.05.2019 of the respondent no.3, the Chief
Education Officer, Haridwar on the ground that the factum of
regularization process of Sushil Kumar was not brought to the notice
of the competent authority at the relevant time.
13. If there were two positions of the Assistant Teacher
(Vyayam), how does it matter that if one Sushil Kumar is working in
another position of Assistant Teacher (Vayayam/Kala/PT)? The
petitioner was appointed as PTA Assistant Teacher (Vyayam) only.
Therefore, this rejection, it appears was not on the valid grounds.
14. The things had since been changed. Sushil Kumar has
been terminated from service, a fact which has not been disputed
before this Court. When the petitioner makes a representation, it has
been rejected on the ground as stated in para 6 of the rejection order
dated 01.09.2022. According to it, the advertisement was not proper.
Why it is not proper? Even if, the process of recruitment was initiated
quite in advance, it cannot be said improper? It is, in fact, more
proper that before the vacancy occurs, the recruitment process is
completed so that as soon as the vacancy occurs, there may be a
placement. It is not a case that there was no advertisement. The
petitioner was appointed. He was recommended for the honorarium
which was so done by the respondent no.3, the Chief Education
Officer, Haridwar. Therefore, the cancellation of the approval for grant
of honorarium of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner which was
made by the respondent no.3, the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar
by virtue of order dated 08.05.2019 is not in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed and impugned order
deserves to be set aside.
15. The writ petition is allowed.
16. The impugned orders dated 01.09.2022 and 08.05.2019
are set aside.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
27.03.2025
Jitendra
