Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2124/2025 of COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 16 July 2025
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D1- 11 WPMS No.2124 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State. By
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 D1- 11
WPMS No.2124 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.08.2019 (Annexure No.03) passed by Respondent no.04.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent no.05 to constitute a panel of experts for recruitment/interview process for the post of Lecturers/Assistant Teacher (L.T.) grade and Junior Assistant in Inter College, Jyudalyun, Pauri Garhwal, District Pauri Garhwal.
(iii) Pass any other and further orders, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered society, which runs Inter College Jyudalyun, Pauri Garhwal, District Pauri Garhwal (“the college”). There were various vacancies in the college. For filling up those vacancies, permission was sought from the respondent no.5, the Chief Education Officer (“the C.E.O.”), who, on 16.07.2019, had granted permission, but, subsequently, the respondent no.3, Director General, School Education, Dehradun, sought an explanation from the C.E.O. as to why permission was given for advertising the vacancies because the society has yet not been renewed, and, thereafter, it is submitted that under the oral directions of the C.E.O., the petitioner did not advertise the vacancies, and now, on 02.05.2025, the petitioner has further sought permission from the C.E.O. for filling up the vacancies, but no decision has been taken on it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that C.E.O. may be directed to take a decision on the representation dated 02.05.2025, which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Learned State Counsel submits that the representation given by the petitioner, which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, shall be decided shortly within a period of four weeks. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned State Counsel. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.5, the C.E.O. to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 02.05.2025, which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from today, in accordance with law.
(Ravindra Maithani J.)
16.07.2025 RV