Vijay Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 62 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Vijay Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 May, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                  Writ Petition (S/S) No.657 of 2025

Vijay Singh                                               ...Petitioner

                                 Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others                        ....Respondents


Present:
              Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State/respondent
              nos. 1 to 4.
              Mr. V.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondent no.5.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

The respondent no.1 had issued an office order giving

details with regard to the educational qualification, mode of

recruitment, selection process, process of appointment, salary etc. on

25.03.2023 for Special Teachers. It is challenged in this petition

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the office order is

not in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

passed in the cases of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and others Vs. Union

of India and others, (2021) 17 SCC 1 and and Devesh Sharma Vs.

Union of India and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 985

4. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner had

already given a representation dated 13.11.2024, therefore, the

respondents may be directed to take a decision on the representation

given by the petitioner (Annexure 7 to the petition).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

impugned officer order is not in accordance with the judgment passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey

(supra) and Devesh Sharma (supra), therefore, the petitioner has given

representation. He would submit that the respondents may be

directed to take a decision on it.

6. Learned State counsel would submit that the office order

is proposed to be changed pursuant to the directions given by Hon'ble

High Court and the matter has already been referred to the

respondnet no.1. He would submit that in case, a fresh representation

is given by the petitioner on the subject, it may also be considered by

the respondent no.1, the Secretary within a period of eight weeks.

7. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned

State counsel.

8. The writ petition is disposed with the liberty to the

petitioner to make a representation to the respondent no.1 within a

week from today with a further direction to the respondent no.1 to

take a decision on it within next eight weeks.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.05.2025 Jitendra