Committee of Management vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

V.K. Bist and Umesh Chandra Dhyani, JJ.

This special appeal has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 11.12.2014, passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 1153 (M/S) of 2012. In view of the fact that Government Order for declaring Class IV cadre as dying cadre was issued on 14.12.2011, and advertisement for filling up Class IV posts was published by the appellant on 18.12.2011, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The petitioner Institution applied before the Education Department seeking permission to initiate the process of recruitment to fill up Class IV posts on 29.10.2011. The District Education Officer, Haridwar granted such permission on 13.12.2011. On the very next day, i.e., 14.12.2011, the State Government issued Government Order declaring Class IV cadre as dying cadre. Inspite of the fact that Class IV cadre was declared dying cadre on 14.12.2011, the petitioner Institution published advertisement on 18.12.2011, inviting applications from suitable candidates for filling up Class IV posts.

On 22.12.2011, District Education Officer, Haridwar passed an order indicating therein the Government Order dated 14.12.2011, whereby petitioner Institution was asked to keep the process of selection of candidates on the Class IV posts in abeyance till further orders. This order was challenged by the writ petitioner by way of filing a writ petition. Learned Single Judge considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners (appellant herein) and dismissed the writ petition.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that permission to publish said advertisement was granted prior to the issuance of Government Order by which the cadre of Class IV was declared as dying cadre. The District Education Officer should not have restrained the appellant Institution from making such appointments. He further submitted that the Government Order dated 14.12.2011 is prospective in nature and, therefore, the order passed by the District Education Officer, Haridwar, is bad in law and Hon''ble Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the Government Order dated 14.12.2011 is prospective in nature is concerned, we are in complete agreement with said contention and also hold that the said Government Order declaring Class IV cadre as dying cadre is prospective in nature, but in the present case, we find that the advertisement was issued subsequent to the issuance of the Government Order and thus we hold that once a Government Order was issued by the State Government declaring Class IV cadre as dying cadre, the appellant Institution could not have published advertisement for making selections on Class IV posts, which was declared dying cadre at that time.

It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that said Government Order was communicated to the appellant Institution on 27.12.2011, therefore, that will not affect the advertisement issued by appellant Institution on 18.12.2011. This argument of learned counsel of the appellants is misconceived, in as much as appellant can not act against the dictates of the State Government. We are, thus, unable to take a view contrary to what has been taken by learned Single Judge. The special appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.

Stay application No. 352 of 2015 also stands disposed of.