WRIT PETITION 6231 of 1996 on 20 November 1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Review Application (MCC No.299 of 2015)

Delay Condonation Application in Review (CLMA No.5067 of 2015) on behalf of the State/applicants In Special Appeal No. 272 of 2012

State of Uttaranchal & others

…….… Appellants

Versus

Bipin Chandra Rangad & others

…..…Respondents

Present:

Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for the State/appellants. Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the respondents.

Coram: Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

-By the Court:

This case has been heard through video

conferencing.

2. This special appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.04.2013. Now a review petition has been filed by the State/applicants, which is highly belated. The office report shows that it is belated by 714 days, which is accompanied by a delay condonation application.

3. Even though the delay is inordinate and has not been satisfactorily explained, yet purely in the interest of justice and considering that it is State’s appeal, we condone the delay in filing the review petition. Delay condonation application stands allowed.

4. The order sought to be reviewed by the State/applicants was passed by the Division Bench of this Court comprising of the then Chief Justice (Barin Ghosh, C.J. and Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.). By the orders of the Chief Justice, this matter has been nominated to this Court.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties on the review petition on merits.

6. This case has a long chequered history. The respondents herein who are B.Ed. qualified persons, who underwent a selection process in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh for the post of primary school teachers. At the relevant time, in pursuance of the relevant Government Orders, a B.Ed. qualified candidate was eligible for appointment as a primary school teacher, yet the petitioners were not given appointment, and therefore, they were constrained to file a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being Writ Petition No. 6231 of 1996, which was allowed on 20.11.1996 and a mandamus was issued in favour of the petitioners, which reads as under:- “In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to appointment petitioners as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in District Tehri Garhwal expeditiously, after canceling the appointments of untrained teachers of C.P.Ed. holders to the extent necessary to adjust the petitioners.”

7. In spite of this mandamus, the petitioners were not appointed for a long time and were only appointed as primary school teachers after the State of Uttarakhand was created on 09.11.2000. Thereafter the services of some of these teachers were terminated vide order dated 17/19.04.2006, who are respondents before this Court. They had challenged their termination order before this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 574 of 2006, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.05.2006, as no notice was given to the petitioners, and therefore, the termination order was set aside, but liberty was given to authorities to pass appropriate orders afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were again terminated in December, 2006 by relying upon the decision of this Court passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.517 of 2003 dated 29.05.2004, wherein directions were given for appointment of certain candidates as teachers in primary schools in order to make seat available for them, the services of the petitioners were terminated as they had lower quality points than those candidates. The petitioners were again constrained to file a writ petition before this Court being WPSS No.57 of 2007, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.06.2010 on ground that the appointment of the petitioners was based on a mandamus issued in their favour in Writ Petition No.6231 of 1996 vide order dated 20.11.1996, an order which has attained finality as it was never challenged by the State in appeal. Therefore, their termination was totally illegal.

8. The State filed a special appeal being SPA No.272 of 2012. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal on 15.04.2013 upholding the findings of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide its order dated 29.05.2004 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 517 of 2003 had only directed the appointment of teachers on the available posts. It did not mean that the posts be made available for them after removing the petitioners (present respondents). It was a complete misreading of the order dated 29.05.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 517 of 2003, held the Division Bench in Special Appeal. Now a review petition has been filed against this order.

9. The grounds for review are extremely limited and even if one applies the principles as laid down under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, these grounds are not available to the State. The State has not been able to show that there is any error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 15.04.2013 or any illegality which may call for an interference in the matter. In fact, we are of the opinion that it is an absolutely futile exercise by the State Government in filing the review petition.

10. The review petition has absolutely no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

24.11.2020

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

24.11.2020