Manmohan Arya vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The delay, in filing the application to restore the appeal, is not opposed by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4. The delay is, therefore, condoned. Consequently, the special appeal shall stand restored to file.

This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in WPSS No.121 of 2012 dated 05.07.2017. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner was appointed as a P.T.A. teacher w.e.f. 05.03.2006; his services were disengaged by the management of the institution on 30.11.2010; and the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that, despite a direction issued by the Block Development Officer on 30.11.2010 to the Committee of Management to maintain status-quo, he was not reinstated in service.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the submissions, urged on behalf of respondent nos.3 to 4, that the petitioner did not possess a B.Ed. Degree which is the prescribed qualification for appointment of a L.T. Grade teacher. Taking note of the fact that a person, who does not possess B.Ed. Degree, could not be appointed as a L.T. Grade teacher, the learned Single Judge held that no relief could be given to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge, however, took note of the assurance given to the Court by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4, that, whenever any vacancy occurred in any teaching or non teaching post in the institution, the petitioner would be given preference at the time of appointment, subject to his fulfilling all conditions of eligibility.

Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that petitioner has since obtained his B.Ed. Degree, albeit after the order under appeal was passed. The learned Single Judge has refused to grant relief in a writ petition, where the petitioner had questioned his disengagement from 30.11.2010, on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification of having a B.Ed. Degree.

The subsequent event of the petitioner, having obtained B.Ed. Degree after the order under appeal was passed, would not justify interference with the order under appeal. In any event, the appellant-writ petitioner's interest is adequate safeguarded by the assurance of Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 (as is recorded in the order under appeal). Suffice it, in the light of the subsequent event of the petitioner now claiming to have obtained a B.Ed. Degree, to permit him to make a representation to the Committee of Management (respondent nos.2 & 3). We have no reason to doubt that, on any such representation being made by the petitioner enclosing thereto a copy of the B.Ed. Degree, respondent nos.2 & 3 would give such a representation its due consideration.

Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner had claimed arrears of salary from June to November, 2010, the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the same in the order under appeal. The respondents have denied any such amount to be due to the petitioner. In the light of the denial by the respondent-Committee of Management, this Court would not undertake an examination of the petitioner's claim, in writ proceedings, as disputed questions of fact are, ordinarily, not examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Suffice it to leave it open to the petitioner to avail his common law remedy of filing a Suit, and to seek recovery of salary which he claims is due to him.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.