Govind Prasad Maikhuri & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

This writ petition has been filed by Manager of a government aided educational institution, namely, Maa Chandika Devi Inter College, Maikhura,

District Chamoli. The relief sought in the writ petition is as follows:

“i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22-07-2021 (Contained as Annexure No.1) after

calling the entire records from the respondents and further direct the respondents to grant approval to selection conducted by the interview committee

on 05-04-2021 (Contained as Annexure No.3 (Colly) or in alternate pass any appropriate orders keeping in view of the facts highlighted in the body of

the petition or mould the relief appropriately.â€​

According to the petitioner, selection in the aforesaid college was held for the post of Principal in which three candidates were called for interview.

Regional Additional Director of Education, Pauri declined to grant approval to the recommendation of the Selection Committee on the ground that

quorum was not complete, as only two candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as many as three candidates were called and all of them reported for interview on the

scheduled day and time, although, one of the candidate returned without facing the interview board. Thus, according to him, the reason assigned in the

impugned order is unsustainable.

Respondents have relied upon a provisoin in Chapter 2 of the Regulations framed under School Education Act for refusing to grant approval, which

is quoted in the impugned order. Said provision ordains that if number of candidates, who present themselves for interview, is less than three, then

interview shall be suspended and fresh date shall be notified to all the candidates.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in the present case, three candidates had reported for interview on the scheduled date and time;

although, actual interview was held only in respect of two candidates, therefore, the bar created by aforesaid provision shall not be attracted in the

present case.

Learned Additional C.S.C. contends otherwise and submits that since the number of interviewed candidates is less than three, therefore, the

provision contained in the Regulations is attracted.

After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer and submits that the Director, School Education be directed to

examine the matter and take appropriate decision, as per law, at the earliest.

Learned Additional C.S.C. does not oppose the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation to Director, School Education. If such representation is

made within two weeks from today, Director, School Education shall take decision thereupon, in accordance with law, within ten weeks’ from the

date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order.

It goes without saying that, before taking any decision, Director, School Education shall hear all stakeholders in the matter.

It shall be open to petitioners to approach this Court, after the decision taken on his representation.