Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/130/2006 of LATA HADALA Vs DISTRICT EDUCATION and ORS on 31 December 2012
of 2006 Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
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.
Conclusion
WPSS No. 130 of 2006
Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.
Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
The writ petitioner has challenged
order dated 6[th] December, 2005 by which petitioner’s claim for hypothetical arrears of salary as well as seniority have been rejected.
The short fact of the case is that the
petitioner was selected by Public Service Commission to the post of Lecturer. Inspite of recommendation having been made by the Public Service Commission, the College Authority did not allow him to join. It appears from the record that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. The respondents authority did not implement the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, as a result, the petitioner has approached this Court stating that his appointment could only be made through the intervention of the Court. Because of late joining of the petitioner in service, he has been deprived of his salary as well as seniority.
The impugned order was passed without giving any hearing to the petitioner. I think in a matter of this nature, order should have been passed after giving a chance of hearing to the petitioner.
Accordingly, I set aside the order. I direct the District Education Officer without being influenced by earlier order and after serving notice to the petitioner shall rehear the matter and take fresh decision. This shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Dated 31.12.2012 Shiv
(K.J. Sengupta, J.)