Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/478/2024 of SHASHI PANDEY Vs RAVINATH RAMAN on 18 September 2025
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 65 CLCON No. 478 of 2024 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the
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.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 65
CLCON No. 478 of 2024 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the State. The petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court willful disobedience of order dated 22.03.2017, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 952 of 2016, Km. Shashi Pandey and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (“the petition”). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for pre-primary classes minimum qualification has been prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education (“NCTE”), and in the petition, a statement was given on behalf of the State that as and when pre-primary classes would be run, the Teachers with essential qualifications would be appointed. It is argued that though the respondents have started running pre-primary classes, but the Teachers are not qualified as is prescribed by the NCTE. Learned State counsel was required to get instructions. Learned State counsel under instructions submits that, in fact, the Education Department is not running any pre-primary classes. Under the Women Empowerment and Child Development Department, Anganwadi workers are doing some work in that area. Therefore, it is not a case of contempt, as such. Written instructions have been tendered for the perusal of the Court. They are taken on record. It is stated by learned State counsel that the Education Department is not running any pre-primary classes and there is no recruitment of Teachers for pre-primary classes. There is no question of any contempt of this Court’s order dated 22.03.2017, passed in the petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition may not proceed further and it is closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be given liberty to raise the issue in a separate petition. The petitioner is always free to raise such issues as are permissible under the law.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.09.2025
Jitendra