Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/308/2011 of ANOOP KUMAR and OTHERS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and OTHERS on 30 December 2011
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 308 of 2011 Anoop Kumar and others ..….…… Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 308 of 2011
Anoop Kumar and others
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
..….…… Appellants
…...……. Respondents
Present: Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.3 to 16.
Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief JusticeHon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date : 30[th] December, 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral)
The appellants, as appears from the submissions made on their behalf, are either Bachelor in Arts or Bachelor in Science and in addition thereto had B.Ed. qualification. According to the notification dated 23[rd] August, 2010, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has permitted people having qualification as that of the appellants to be appointed as teachers for Classes I to V upto 1[st] January, 2012 provided they undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized six months’ special programme in elementary education. For the purpose of filling up the vacant posts of teachers, an advertisement was published on 14[th]/15[th] December, 2011. At the instance of the writ petitioners, the said advertisement has been stayed by an interim order with a direction that the writ petitions be listed on 5[th] January, 2012.
2. In the appeal, it is being contended that in the event selection is not completed before 1[st] January, 2012, the appellants will lose out opportunity of being appointed and, accordingly, they have preferred the present appeal with an application for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned order.
3. We think that what the official respondents could do to reach to the appellants the benefit of the said notification was squarely done by issuing advertisement dated 14[th] /15[th] December, 2011 and, similarly, what could be done by the appellants in that regard were also completed by them by responding to the said advertisement and, accordingly, there was no difficulty in selecting the appellants provided they were found fit to be selected, and to appoint them on or before 1[st] January, 2012, but by reason of the order of the Court, the actions thus taken and further actions that were contemplated have been stayed and, that too, without hearing the appellants. We do not think that by such action on the part of the Court, any right of the appellants, if any, accrued under the said notification can at all be affected.
4. With the clarification as above, we refuse to grant leave to the appellants to prefer the appeal, and instead, permit them to approach the learned Single Judge in order to put forward their contention before the learned Single Judge.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.12.2011 30.12.2011
P. Singh