Suman Rekha vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Impugned Order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the respondent nos.3 & 4. (Annexure No.13 to this writ petition)

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner took this Court to the brief facts of the case to appreciate the controversy involved in the writ petition, which shorn of any further details, are that the petitioner applied for Special B.T.C. Training and was allotted DIET (District Institute of Educational Training) of District Almora. The petitioner joined the training at DIET Almora, district Almora, but, in between she moved a representation to allow her to complete the training from DIET Dehradun; her prayer was acceded by the respondents and she was allowed to complete her training from DIET Dehradun. Petitioner thus completed her Special B.T.C. Training Course from DIET Dehradun. On 05.12.2006, applications were invited for supplying the vacancies on the post of Assistant Teachers, Primary School from those candidates who had completed Special B.T.C. Training from District Dehradun. Pursuant to the said advertisement, petitioner applied and got selected. An appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 26.07.2007 on the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School. The petitioner joined at the Pradhan Primary School Simog. But, within the fortnight thereafter, respondents issued an order dated 30.08.2007, whereby the appointment of the petitioner, on the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner’s selection for the Special B.T.C. Training was for District Almora and not for the District Dehradun, and, therefore, her appointment in District Dehradun was not correct. It was further mentioned in the letter dated 30.08.2007 (whereby petitioner’s appointment was cancelled) that the petitioner concealed this fact which resulted into cancellation of her appointment.

On 27.09.2007, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 30.08.2007.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In paragraph no.5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that pursuant to the counselling done by the State Council for Education Research and Training (SCERT) Narendra Nagar, the petitioner was sent for training under the quota of District Almora/Bageshwar, since the petitioner was selected for the Special B.T.C. Course under the Almora quota. In paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit, it has been contended that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner was allowed to complete her training from DIET Dehradun but was subject to the condition that the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher would be in a Primary School in District Almora/Bageshwar, where the post was lying vacant. Such instructions were indicated in the letter dated 09.03.2006, while permitting the petitioner to complete her training from DIET Dehradun. These crucial facts mentioned in paragraph nos.5 and 7 of the counter affidavit has been denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit. Further, letter dated 09.03.2006, nowhere indicated that the petitioner was allowed to complete her Special B.T.C. Course from Dehradun with a condition that she would be given appointment in District Almora/ Bageshwar.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide dated 26.11.2022 in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1418 of 2007 Smt. Pramila Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, whereby in the similar set of case, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed and set aside.

Learned State Counsel does not oppose this fact submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. In support of his submission, he supplied written instruction dated 11.10.2023 in Court, which is taken in record. In the said instruction, it is clearly stated that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the petitioners of writ petition No.1416/2007(S/S), 1417/2007(S/S) and 1418/2007(S/S), which is decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 26.11.2022.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner did not violate any condition of the advertisement. There was no such condition that the petitioner was permitted to complete her Special B.T.C. Course from DIET, Dehradun, and claim for appointment would be only in the district for which she was earlier selected for completing Special B.T.C. Course. In the opinion of this Court, petitioner was selected for training in DIET Almora/Bageshwar, but once she completed her Course from DIET Dehradun, she had rightly applied there and accordingly selected and was given appointment. There was no concealment of fact by her, as suggested by the respondent nos.2 to 4 in their short counter affidavit, for cancellation of her appointment. The petitioner is in service on the strength of interim order passed by this Court.

Therefore, the present writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.08.2007 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.