Uttarakhand High Court
Shyam Singh Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 10 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:8004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1206 of 2025
Shyam Singh Panwar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ... Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 39 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 55 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 58 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 59 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 61 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 64 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1203 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1204 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1209 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1210 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1211 of 2025
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional CSC, with Mr. Narayan Dutt,
Standing Counsel, for the State.
10.9.2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Since common questions of fact and law
are involved in these writ petitions, these are being
heard and decided together by this common
judgment. However, for brevity, facts of Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 1206 of 2025 alone are being
considered and discussed here.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has sought the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari to quash the impugned charge
2025:UHC:8004
sheet dated 30-12-2024 (copy Annexure No. 9 to
the Writ Petition) with all consequential disciplinary
proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents not
to take any coercive action against the Petitioner
pursuant to charge sheet dated 30-12-2024."
3. It is not in dispute that petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Government
Primary School in the month of April, 2005 and he
was promoted to the post of Assistant Teacher in a
Government Junior High School on 21.5.2021.
According to petitioner, he has rendered nearly 20
years of service and the chargesheet, which has
been issued against him, is illegal and
unsustainable as the qualification possessed by the
petitioner cannot be questioned after 20 years.
4. Chargesheet issued against the petitioner
by the District Education Officer (Elementary),
Uttarkashi is on record as Annexure-9 to the writ
petition. The sole allegation in the chargesheet is
that petitioner secured appointment as Assistant
Teacher based on B.Ed. degree awarded by
Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, Uttar
Pradesh, however the said institute is not included
in the list of recognized institutions by UGC.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner was not appointed based on
B.Ed. qualification and he was appointed on the
2025:UHC:8004
strength of Special BTC Training undergone by the
petitioner.
6. Learned State Counsel, however,
contends that the institute, which issued B.Ed.
degree to the petitioner is not recognized by
University Grants Commission, therefore it is not
competent to award any degree. He further submits
that Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur is not
recognized by NCTE, which also proves that the
B.Ed. degree possessed by the petitioner is not
valid for appointment as teacher. Learned State
Counsel further submits that Special BTC Training
was imparted to valid B.Ed. qualification holders in
order to prepare them for employment as teacher
in basic/primary schools and candidates, who
obtained B.Ed. degree from Rastriya Patrachar
Sansthan, Kanpur, were not permitted to
participate in Special BTC Training, as is admitted
in para 6 of the writ petition and petitioner was
given admission in Special BTC Training course
pursuant to order dated 21.2.2004, passed in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 97/2004. Thus learned State
Counsel submits that the B.Ed. degree possessed
by the petitioner was from a fake institute, not
recognized by UGC or NCTE. Thus petitioner lacks
the basic qualification needed for appointment as
teacher.
7. Learned State Counsel further submits
that the writ petition is pre-mature and ill-advised,
as no punishment is inflicted upon the petitioner
and he has simply been asked to give reply to the
2025:UHC:8004
chargesheet. He submits that petitioner would get
fair trial during disciplinary enquiry and he will have
the opportunity to prove his innocence during the
course of the enquiry.
8. This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned State Counsel that the
writ petition is pre-mature. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Union of India & Another v. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana, reported as (2006) 12 SCC 28, has
held as under:
"14. The reason why ordinarily a writ
petition should not be entertained against
a mere show-cause notice or charge-
sheet is that at that stage the writ
petition may be held to be premature. A
mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice
does not give rise to any cause of action,
because it does not amount to an adverse
order which affects the rights of any
party unless the same has been issued by
a person having no jurisdiction to do so.
It is quite possible that after considering
the reply to the show-cause notice or
after holding an enquiry the authority
concerned may drop the proceedings
and/or hold that the charges are not
established. It is well settled that a writ
petition lies when some right of any party
is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or
charge-sheet does not infringe the right
of anyone. It is only when a final order
imposing some punishment or otherwise
adversely affecting a party is passed, that
the said party can be said to have any
grievance."
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied
upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Bani Singh & Another, reported as 1990 Supp SCC
2025:UHC:8004
738. The said judgment is distinguishable on facts.
The B.Ed. degree, on the strength of which
petitioner secured appointment, if found to be
invalid, goes to the very root of the matter and
makes him ineligible for appointment as teacher. A
person, who lacks the essential condition of
eligibility for appointment as teacher, cannot be
permitted to serve as teacher, especially when the
requirement of possessing B.Ed. degree from an
institute recognized by National Council for Teacher
Education is prescribed by statute. As per UGC Act,
degree can be awarded only by a University,
recognized by UGC, and degree issued by
University/Institute, not recognized by UGC, is not
valid for appointment.
10. The question whether the B.Ed. degree
possessed by the petitioner is valid or invalid for
appointment as teacher has to be decided in the
disciplinary enquiry. Petitioner has simply been
asked to give reply to the charge against him. Since
no civil consequence has ensued to the petitioner
by issuance of chargesheet, therefore, the writ
petitions are dismissed as pre-mature with liberty
to petitioners to give reply to the chargesheet and
participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Pr
PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53,
cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.09.17 18:03:36 +05'30'
