Preeti vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 18 days. The delay has been sufficiently explained. Moreover, learned State Counsel has no objection to the delay condonation application being allowed.

Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed and the delay of 18 days is condoned. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the instant special appeal.

The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2026, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1959 of 2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order dated 30.04.2026, passed by the Chief Education Officer, Pauri Garhwal, rejecting the representation of the petitioner seeking appointment as Lecturer (Sanskrit) in a private aided inter college on basis of the selection process initiated pursuant to an advertisement dated 06.12.2015.

The order passed by Chief Education Officer records that advertisement dated 06.12.2015 was cancelled by Notification No.531, dated 25.04.2018 and Government Order No.802, dated 01.08.2018.

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that in view of Regulation 10(dd) of Regulation 21 of Chapter-2 of the Uttarakhand School Regulations, 2009, the selection process was required to be completed within three months, failing which, fresh exercise was to be undertaken. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said provision was introduced in the year 2015 after initiation of the selection process. In other words, his submission is that the amended provision would not apply.

The order impugned in the writ petition, as noted above, specifically records that the advertisement dated 06.12.2015 was cancelled by a Notification dated 25.04.2018, issued pursuant to a Government Order dated 01.08.2018. These were not challenged in the writ petition.

For this reason alone, we are of the opinion that the relief claimed in the writ petition, could not have been granted. Additionally, as rightly observed by learned Single Judge, it is difficult to accept that after lapse of such a long time, any selection process could be treated to be in progress to entitle the appellant to any direction for appointment on its basis.

The appeal, accordingly, lacks merit and is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.