AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
The application to condone the delay of 174 days' in preferring the appeal is not opposed and is, therefore, ordered.
This appeal is preferred by the State of Uttarakhand against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 1049 of 2010 dated 10.04.2018.
The respondent-writ petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade). There were two streams i.e. General and Women, for appointment to these posts. The posts reserved for women stream, are said to have been filled up in the order of merit and women, who secured lesser marks, were required to be included in the General stream. While the appellants-respondents claimed that the respondent-writ petitioner had secured lesser marks, and should have been included in the General stream but had been included in the woman stream by oversight, it is not in dispute that, ever since her appointment as an Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) in 2002 till she was promoted as Lecturer on 06.08.2010, this error was admittedly not noticed by the appellants-respondents.
On her being promoted as Lecturer (Home Science), the respondent-writ petitioner joined the said post on 10.08.2010. It was only then that she was called upon to exercise her option, vide proceedings dated 13.08.2010, as to whether she was willing to opt for the Women stream or the General stream. This option, even according to the appellants - respondents, ought to have been sought from the respondent - writ petitioner at the time of inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade).
It is contended by Sri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-respondents, that, since options were not called for in the year 2002, the appellants-respondents had called upon the respondent - writ petitioner to exercise her option in the year 2010. Whether the appellants-respondents could have done so, more than 8 years after the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (LT Grade), is debatable.
Be that as it may, on the basis of the proceedings dated 13.08.2010 and on the ground that if respondent-writ petitioner were treated as having been appointed in General stream of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade), she would not be entitled to be promoted as Lecturer, her appointment order dated 6.08.2010 was cancelled by proceedings dated 25.08.2010 without putting her on notice, and without giving her an opportunity of being heard.
While the submission of Sri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants - respondents, that the doctrine of estoppel would have no application in the present case, since the Rules require applicants, who sought appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) to exercise their option either to join the General or the Women stream, cannot be said to be without merit, the fact remains that, before cancelling the order of promotion of the respondent - writ petitioner as Lecturer vide proceedings dated 25.08.2018, the appellants-respondents had neither put her on notice nor was she given an opportunity of being heard.
Suffice it, therefore, to modify the order under appeal of the learned Single Judge and, instead of setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.2010 (cancelling the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 06.08.2010 as Lecturer) applying the doctrine of estoppel, to set it aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is made clear that the order, now passed by us, shall not disable the appellants-respondents from putting the respondent-writ petitioner on notice, giving her an opportunity of being heard, and thereafter to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.