[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Bhaskar Mishra And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 November, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:10591
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2028 of 2025 (SS)
Bhaskar Mishra and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition No. 2030 of 2025 (SS)
Pankaj Nautiyal and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Advocates : Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandra
Shekhar Dalakoti, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State
Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.P.S.
Takuli, Advocate for the caveator.
Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.S. Rawat,
Advocate for respondent No. 3.
Reserved on :26.11.2025
Delivered on :.28.11.2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
1. Since common questions of law and fact are
involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard
together and are being decided by a common judgment.
However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No.
2028 of 2025 (SS) alone are being discussed and
considered.
2. District Education Officer (Elementary),
Champawat and Pithoragarh have issued advertisement
inviting application from eligible persons for
appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government
Primary Schools. As per the advertisement, one should
2025:UHC:10591
possess Bachelor's Degree with two-year Diploma in
Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) or four-year B.El.Ed, or
two-year D.Ed from an institution recognised by
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).
3. As per the advertisement issued in respect of
district Champawat, last date for submission of
application is 28.11.2025, while for District Pithoragarh,
last date indicated is 30.11.2025. Petitioners are not
eligible for appointment, as they are still pursuing two-
year D.El.Ed course from different institutes.
4. According to petitioners, they are about to
complete D.El.Ed course and their result is likely to be
declared in the month of December, 2025, therefore
they have approached this Court for extending the
deadline fixed for submission of application, in the
advertisement, to enable them to complete their
educational qualification in the meantime.
5. The reliefs sought in Writ Petition No. 2028 of
2025 (SS) are as follow:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to relax condition no. (2) of the
advertisements qua the petitioners, issued on 7th November
2025, and extend 15 days' time for petitioners for submitting
application form for the post of Assistant teacher, Govt. Primary
school w.e.f. the last date as mentioned in the advertisement.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to accept application forms of the
petitioners for the post of Assistant teacher, Govt. Primary
school through off line mode within extended period of 15 days
and permit the petitioners to participate in selection process for
the said post.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Uttarakhand Education Board, Ramnagar, the
respondent no.3, to conduct final evaluation examination of
petitioners at the earliest and declare the result of such
examination at the earliest, preferably within two days.
2025:UHC:10591
IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to declare the result of
the petitioners for the post of Assistant teacher in Government
Primary school after completion of selection process, and the
petitioners may be recommended and offered appointments on
the post of Assistant teacher in Government Primary school."
6. Petitioners have also sought a direction to the
Uttarakhand Education Board, Ramnagar, District
Nainital, to conduct final evaluation examination for
D.El.Ed course pursued by the petitioners and also to
declare result of such examination at the earliest.
7. Learned State Counsel is right in submitting that
one should be possessed of all requisite qualifications
on last date fixed for submission of application.
Petitioners are yet to complete D.El.Ed course. The
selection process cannot be kept on hold till the time
petitioners complete their qualification. Fixing of last
date for submission of application is sole prerogative of
the employer and judicial interference in such matter
would derail the selection process. Moreover, it will
then become unending process and many more persons
who are yet to complete their qualification, will also
claim similar relief.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar
Sharma and others Vs. Chander Shekhar and
another, reported as (1997) 4 SCC 18 has held as
under:
"6. ............ The proposition that where applications are
called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for
filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall
have to be judged with reference to that date and that date
alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the
prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date
cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification
issued/published calling for applications constitutes a
representation to the public and the authority issuing it is
bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One
reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that
2025:UHC:10591
persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed
date but before the date of interview would be allowed to
appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could
also have applied. Just because some of the persons had
applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the
prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could
not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their
applications ought to have been rejected at the inception
itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not
doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the
proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of
Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 :
(1993) 25 ATC 234] . The reasoning in the majority opinion
that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the
interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best
talent available and that such course was in furtherance of
public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification.
It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an
error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M.
Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was
right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been
allowed to appear for the interview.
7. Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the 33 candidates,
submitted that these 33 candidates had appeared for the B.E.
Examination prior to their applying for the post and that there
was some delay in publishing the results and that these
respondents cannot be punished for the delay on the part of
the authorities concerned in publishing the results. In our
opinion, the said contention is beside the point. In these
proceedings, we cannot examine the reasons for delay --
assuming that there was delay in publishing the results. That
issue is outside the purview of the writ petition. Whatever
may be the reason, the 33 persons were not qualified as on the
prescribed date and, therefore, could not have been allowed to
appear for the interview. On the first issue (mentioned in the
Order dated 1-9-1995), therefore, we hold in favour of the
review petitioners, affirming the opinion of Sahai, J.
9. Fact remains that petitioners do not possess
necessary teacher training qualification, recognised by
NCTE, as yet and as per clause [k(2) of the
advertisement, one must possess all requisite
qualifications on the last date of submission of
application.
10. Every selection has to be completed within time-
bound manner and employer is free to decide the last
date for submission of application. The deadline fixed
2025:UHC:10591
for submission of application cannot be extended on the
asking of candidates, who are yet to complete their
educational qualification and extension once granted
will open pandora's box, as many more candidates,
who are in the process of acquiring necessary
qualification, will also claim extension of deadline for
participating in the selection.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
contended that petitioners' right to be considered for
appointment would be violated if last date for
submission of application is not extended. Although,
right to be considered for public employment is a
fundamental right, but that right extends only to
individuals who meet all the eligibility criteria specified
by the relevant rules.
12. Possessing a teachers training qualification,
recognised by NCTE is an essential condition of
eligibility. A candidate having two-year D.El.Ed, four-
year B.El.Ed or two-year D.Ed is eligible for
appointment as teacher in a primary school. Petitioners
do not possess any of these qualifications. Merely
because they are pursuing D.El.Ed course, will not
make them eligible and they will become eligible when
Diploma or Degree of passing teachers training course
is awarded to them.
13. A person who does not possess requisite
educational qualification for appointment to a post till
the last date for submission of application cannot seek
a writ of mandamus to extend the deadline fixed for
submission of application.
2025:UHC:10591
14. Thus, the reliefs claimed by petitioners cannot be
granted. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
28.11.2025
Mahinder/
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F,
cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.11.28 12:16:30 +05'30'
