High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 12 UK CK 0037

Jagmohan Singh Shah vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 4 December 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2137 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 652 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought an indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondents to remove the one-day break from the service of the petitioner and the petitioner shall be treated as in continuous service.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, pursuant to selection process for an appointment of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Science) (Maths) submitted his candidature for appointment being eligible in every respect. Vide order dated 18.11.1998, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Science Maths) issued by the Regional Joint Director, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment letter, petitioner joined as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Science Maths) on 05.12.1998 in Government Intermediate College, Kandai, Dashjula, District Chamoli.

3.

Suddenly after the joining of the petitioner and many other similarly situated Assistant Teachers, L.T. Grade who were given appointment pursuant to the aforesaid selection process, their service were terminated by the impugned order dated 17.06.1999 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).

4.

Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Science) (Maths) on 30.06.1998 forenoon, but, on the very next date of the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner was again issued a fresh appointment letter, which is annexure-5 to the writ petition for the same post and in the same college under the hand of Regional Director of Secondary Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. Pursuant to the aforesaid re-appointment, the petitioner had given his joining on 17.07.1999 vide annexure-6 to the writ petition. By the unreasonable and arbitrary cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner at the hand of the respondent no. 3, an artificial break was brought about in the continuous service of the petitioner and now, feeling aggrieved by the artificial break brought in the service of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court for justice.

5.

During the period when such appointment of the similarly situated Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade was cancelled and subsequently they were reappointed by the subsequent order, a number of petitions were filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the writ petition filed by those petitioners were allowed with a direction to give continuity of service to those petitioners without giving any weightage to the artificial break brought in the service of those petitioners.

6.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with those judgments and one of the said judgments passed by this High Court is also annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

7.

Learned counsel for the respondent State also produced a judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in WPSS No. 9621 of 2000 dated 18.10.2023, wherein, on the similar set of facts, this Court disposed off the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner.

8.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to again relegate the petitioner to the respondent authorities, which will bring unnecessary trouble to the petitioner by going from pillar to post to get the grievance redressed.

9.

Since, the controversy is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad before the creation of Uttarakhand and the controversy relates to that period, it would be appropriate if the petition is allowed in the light of the judgment passed by the Courts.

10.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and it is provided that the artificial service shall not affect the petitioner in any manner and the petitioner shall be paid his salary in accordance with law, of the period during which the artificial break was brought by the wrongful exercise of power by the Education Department.