AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
The application (CLMA No. 543 of 2019) seeking condonation of delay is not being opposed and is, therefore, allowed and the delay is condoned.
This appeal is preferred by the State of Uttarakhand against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1549 of 2015 dated 21.05.2018.
The respondent-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking appointment in a School, for establishment of which the writ-petitioner's father had donated two Nalis of land. The writ-petitioner's claim was rejected by order dated 28.11.2013 holding that three persons are working in supernumerary posts, as Office Assistants; and, in the absence of vacancies, it is not possible to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as an Office Assistant.
In the order under Appeal, the learned Single Judge has observed that the impugned order dated 28.11.2013 was passed without taking into consideration the Government Order dated 28.12.1973. The appellants were directed to consider the writ-petitioner's case afresh in terms of the Government Order dated 28.12.1973, and the order dated 28.11.2013 was quashed.
Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, would submit that quashing of the impugned order dated 28.11.2013, and in consequently directing the appellants to consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with the Government Order dated 28.12.1973, may be construed as this Court having rejected the stand of the State Government in the impugned order dated 28.11.2013 regarding absence of posts and vacancies; even, in terms of the Government Order dated 28.12.1973, the petitioner would not be entitled to be given any appointment; the said order only stipulates that, wherever possible, appointment may be made; and, in the present case, it is not possible to give employment to the writ-petitioner in the absence of posts / vacancies in the said School.
All that has been directed by the learned Single Judge, in the order under appeal, is for the appellants to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner in terms of the Government Order dated 28.12.1973.
The question whether the petitioner is eligible in terms of the Government Order dated 28.12.1973, whether or not there are vacancies where he can be appointed etc. are all matters for the competent authority to consider and decide, and not for this Court to direct.
In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has merely directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner in terms of the Government Order dated 28.12.1973. A direction to consider the claim of the respondent-writ petitioner would only require the authority to consider the claim in accordance with the said order. The contention of Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, that it may be construed as a mandamus, to appoint the respondent-writ petitioner, is wholly misconceived.
We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order under appeal. Suffice it to make it clear that the order under appeal only requires the appellant to consider the case of the petitioner for employment in terms of the Government Order dated 28.12.1973; and not for him to be appointed irrespective of availability or otherwise of vacancies / posts.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.