State of Uttarakhand others v. Ramesh Kumar Mandal others

Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J. ( Pe r : H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) JUD GM EN T

1. There is delay of 193 days in filing SPA No. 962 of 2017. Prayer for condonat ion of delay is not opposed by learned counsel for t he respondent .

2. For t he reasons st at ed t he delay condonat ion applicat ion, t he sam e ( I A No. 14809 of 2017) is allowed. The delay in filing t he appeal is hereby condoned.

3. Since com m on quest ion of law and fact are involved in t hese appeals, t herefore, t hese are being heard and decided t oget her. However, for brevit y, fact s 1 of SPA No. 962 of 2017 alone are being considered and discussed.

4. This int ra court appeal is direct ed against t he j udgm ent and order dat ed 05.04.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 1855 of 2016, which is ext ract ed below: - “ The service of t he pet it ioner was t erm inat ed vide order dat ed 24.08.2016 on t he ground t hat pet it ioner was not eligible t o t he post of Assist ant Teacher Prim ary School. Now, it is not t he disput e t hat pet it ioner is fully eligible and qualified since t he essent ial qualificat ion has been recognized by t he St at e Governm ent in t he year 2007. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion is allowed. I m pugned order dat ed 24.08.2016 ( annexure No. 1 t he writ pet it ion) is quashed and set aside. Respondent s are direct ed t o reinst at e t he pet it ioner t o t he post of Assist ant Teacher Prim ary School, wit hin a period of t hree weeks from t oday, wit h all consequent ial benefit s.” t o

5. Appellant has challenged t he said j udgm ent on t he ground t hat t he Adhikari cert ificat e possessed by writ pet it ioner ( respondent herein) is not recognised as equivalent t o High School, t herefore, writ pet it ioner is not qualified for appoint m ent as Assist ant Teacher ( Elem ent ary) .

6. Learned counsel t he writ pet it ioner, however, subm it s t hat his client passed Adhikari exam inat ion from Gurukul Vishwavidhyalaya Vrindavan, Meerut ( U.P.) t he year 2003 and Adhikari exam inat ion conduct ed by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindavan was recognised by U.P. Board of Secondary Educat ion t ill 2008 and by Ut t arakhand Board of Secondary Educat ion upt o 27.08.2007. Thus, he subm it s t hat even if t he recognit ion grant ed t o Adhikari 2 exam inat ion was subsequent ly wit hdrawn will not render a candidat e ineligible, who is ot herwise eligible. He subm it s t hat his client passed Adhikari exam inat ion in 2003, when it was duly recognised by St at e Educat ion Board of U.P. & Ut t arakhand.

7. Learned counsel for t he writ pet it ioner draw our at t ent ion t o j udgm ent dat ed 09.08.2016 rendered by Division Bench of t his Court in WPSB No. 73 of

2014. I n t he said j udgm ent , coordinat e Bench answered a reference m ade by learned Single Judge, as follows: - “ 29. I n view of above discussion, we answer t he quest ion form ulat ed by learned Single Judge in t he following m anner: - “ The cert ificat e of Adhikari Pariksha issued by Gurukul Vishwavidhyalaya Vrindawan, Mat hura prior t o 2007, would be t reat ed as equivalent t o High School Exam inat ion of U.P. Board and Ut t arakhand Board t ill 27.08.2007.” ”

8. I n t he aforesaid j udgm ent , coordinat e Bench held t hat cert ificat e of Adhikari exam inat ion issued by Gurukul Vishwavidhyalaya Vrindawan, Mat hura prior t o 2007, would be t reat ed as equivalent t o t he High School Exam inat ion of U.P. Board and Ut t arakhand Board, t ill 27.08.2007. Adm it t edly, writ pet it ioner passed Adhikari exam inat ion t he aforesaid Vishwavidhyalaya t he year 2003, t herefore, t erm inat ion of his service on t he ground t hat Adhikari cert ificat e possessed by him is not equivalent t o High School Exam inat ion is unsust ainable. Thus, learned Single Judge right ly int erfered wit h t he t erm inat ion 3 order and direct ed pet it ioner. reinst at em ent of t he writ

9. For t he aforesaid reason, we do not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent dat ed

05.04.2017 passed in WPSB No. 1855 of 2016. Thus, t he special appeals fail and are hereby dism issed. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

22.04.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL 4