State Of Uttarakhand And Another vs Soni Kandpal & Another

V.K. Bist, J

There is delay of 365 days in filing the appeal. Though objections have been filed by the respondent no. 1, but considering the reasons furnished in

the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, we are inclined to condone the delay. Consequently, the delay condonation

application is allowed and the delay of 365 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

Facts in brief, are that the Committee of Management, Mission Inter College Ranikhet, District Almora issued an advertisement on 05.09.2013

inviting applications for the post of Lecturer Hindi in the institution. The respondent no. 1/writ petitioner applied for the said post. On 20.10.2013, the

Selection Committee, after taking interview of the candidates, recommended the names of three candidates in order of merit. The writ petitioner was

placed at serial no. 1. On the very same day i.e. on 20.10.2013, the Manager of the Committee of Management sent the recommendation to the Chief

Education Officer, Almora for approval. The Chief Education Officer, Almora did not take decision on the same for a considerable time and granted

approval vide order dated 18.11.2016. The approval was granted by the Chief Education Officer, Almora w.e.f. 18.11.2016. Aggrieved by the said

order, the respondent no. 1 filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 482 of 2017 before this Court. On 29.03.2017, the learned Single Judge, after referring to

Regulation 17 (g) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “The

Regulationsâ€), held that if the approval is not accorded within a period of two months, it would be deemed to have been granted. Order dated

29.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:

“The writ petition is disposed of at this stage with the consent of both the parties.

The selection process was commenced on the basis of advertisement dated 05.09.2013 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Hindi. The name of

the petitioner was duly recommended by the duly constituted Selection Committee on 20.10.2013.

The appointment of the petitioner was required to be approved by the Chief Education Officer. The Chief Education Officer has accorded the

approval vide order dated 18.11.2016 instead of w.e.f. 02.12.2013.

It would be apt to mention at this stage that one Mr. Prakash Singh has challenged the selection process of the petitioner by way of filing a writ

petition bearing WPSS No.1800 of 2013. The same was dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.10.2016. No interim relief was granted

by this Court to Mr. Prakash Singh in WPSS No.1800 of 2013.

According to the Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, if the permission is not

accorded within a period of two months, it would be deemed to have been granted.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Annexure No.7 dated 18.11.2016 is modified and the approval would be effective from

02.12.2012 instead of 18.11.2016 without consequential benefits.â€​

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before us.

We heard Mr. M.C. Pande, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/appellants

and Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya, Advocate for the writ petitioner/ respondent no. 1.

Regulation 17(g) of the Regulations provides that on receipt of recommendation, District Education Officer shall give decision within two months,

failing which, it will be deemed to be approved. Translated version of Regulation 17 (g) of Chapter II of Regulations, as supplied by the learned

counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, reads as under:

“17(g). After all the candidates for any post are interviewed the Chairman of the Selection Committee shall get a note prepared in duplicate on the

proceeding of the selection held indicating therein the name of the selected candidate alongwith two other candidates on the waiting list. The note so

prepared shall be signed by the Chairman and other members of the Selection Committee giving their full names, designations and addresses and date.

One copy of this note alongwith one copy of the statement referred to in Clause (f) of regulation 10 shall be immediately forwarded by the Chairman

to the Regional Additional Director of Education or to the District Education Officer as the case may be under Section 38. The Regional Additional

Director of Education or to the District Education Officer as the case may be shall give their decision within two months from the date of receiving

the concerned documents failing which it shall be deemed that approval has been granted.â€​

We find that Regulation 17 (g) of Chapter II of the Regulations clearly provides that if decision on the recommendation is not taken by the District

Education Officer within a period of two months, the approval would be deemed to have been granted. In the case in hand, the matter was sent for

approval to the Chief Education Officer, Almora on 20.10.2013. The said approval should have been accorded within a period of two months i.e. by

20.12.2013; but, it was not done. Thus, provision contained in Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II of the Regulations would attract. In our view, the learned

Single Judge has rightly granted benefit of Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II of Regulations to the petitioner. The only thing, which is to be considered by

us, is the date from which benefit of Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II of Regulations is to be given to the petitioner. Admittedly, recommendation was

sent to the District Education Officer on 20.10.2013. No decision was taken on the same by District Education Officer within a period of two months

i.e. 20.12.2013. Therefore, on the expiry of two months i.e. 20.12.2013, the petitioner became entitled for the benefit of Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II

of Regulations. Therefore, while upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we modify the order and direct that approval in the case of

petitioner would be effective from 20.12.2013.

The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.