Secretary School Education State Of Uttarakhand & Others vs Dinesh Chandra Joshi & Others

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

Since all these special appeals raise the same legal issues, they are being decided by this common judgment.

The appellants have challenged the legality of the order dated 22.10.2019, passed by a learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2177 of 2018, and other connected matters, whereby the learned Single Judge has set-aside the order dated 16.03.2018, passed by the Director, Elementary Education, wherein the petitioners were denied the benefit of their past services while calculating the period for granting them the benefit of Assured Career Progression. The learned Single Judge has also issued a writ of mandamus to compute and count services of the petitioners rendered in U.P. Basic Education Board for granting benefit of A.C.P. to them.

Without going into the factual matrix of these cases, suffice it to say that on different occasions, this issue has been raised before this Court, namely whether for getting benefit of A.C.P., previous service rendered by the petitioner with the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board should be added to the period for receiving the benefit of A.C.P., or not?

In the case of Beer Singh Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand & others, [Writ Petition (S/S) No.270 of 2009, decided on 23.12.2009], a learned Single Judge had directed that the past services rendered by the employees in the U.P. Basic Education Board is bound to be counted for all purposes.

A similar view was also expressed by a learned Single Judge in the case of Bachendra Prasad Kanswal & others v. State of Uttarakhand, [Writ Petition (S/S) No.928 of 2012, decided on 09.01.2017].

In the present case, the learned Advocate General conceded that these two judgment, mentioned hereinabove, were never challenged. Therefore, they have attained finality. Most importantly, the learned Advocate General conceded that the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by those two judgments. It is only upon such a concession being made by the learned Advocate General, that the learned Single Judge passed the order dated 22.10.2019.

Needless to say, once a concession is made, and the order is a consensual one, no appeal can lie against the said order.

Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in these special appeals, and the same are, hereby, dismissed.