Santosh Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand and others

of Assist ant Teacher; t hat , pet it ioner challenged t he order dat ed 19.11.2015 by filing WPSS No.2567 of 2015, which was allowed by t he learned Single Judge of t his Court vide order dat ed 17.05.2017, whereby t he im pugned t erm inat ion order dat ed 19.11.2015 was quashed and set aside and liberty was grant ed t o t he respondent s t o proceed wit h t he m at t er, in accordance wit h law; t hat , St at e of Ut t arakhand challenged t he order dat ed 17.05.2017 by filing Special Appeal No.967 of 2017, which was dism issed vide order dat ed

14.12.2019. Pursuant t o t he above orders, pet it ioner was reinst at ed in service and depart m ent al inquiry was conduct ed against t he pet it ioner, as provided under t he Ut t arakhand Governm ent Servant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003; t hat , t he Disciplinary Aut horit y 2 passed t he order dat ed 29.10.2020, whereby t he services of t he pet it ioner were dism issed on t he ground t hat , at t he t im e of her appoint m ent , t he pet it ioner does not possess t he requisit e educat ional and professional qualificat ions for t he aforesaid post ; t hat , t hereaft er, t he pet it ioner challenged t he order of dism issal by preferring t he depart m ent al appeal, which was also dism issed vide order dat ed 30.06.2021; t hat , pet it ioner challenged t hese orders by way of filing t he Claim Pet it ion No. 22/ DB/ 2022 before t he Tribunal and t he Tribunal set t he order of t erm inat ion and direct ed t he Disciplinary Aut horit y t o proceed afresh, in accordance wit h law, t hereaft er, t he pet it ioner was reinst at ed in service and depart m ent al proceedings were init iat ed against t he pet it ioner; t hat , ult im at ely, vide order dat ed

08.02.2023, t he services of t he pet it ioner were again t erm inat ed; t hat , pet it ioner challenged t he order dat ed

08.02.2023 before t he Tribunal by filing t he Claim Pet it ion No.52/ DB/ 2023, which was disposed of by t he Tribunal vide it s order dat ed 16.03.2023 by giving libert y t o t he pet it ioner t o file depart m ent al appeal against t he t erm inat ion order; t hat , t hereaft er, t he pet it ioner preferred t he depart m ent al appeal, which was dism issed vide order dat ed 12.05.2023 by t he Chief 3 Educat ion Officer, Dehradun; t hat , t he pet it ioner challenged t he order dat ed 12.05.2023 as well as order dat ed 08.02.2023 by preferring t he Claim Pet it ion No.97/ DB/ 2023 before t he Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dat ed 10.03.2025, whereby t he Tribunal direct ed t he Chief Educat ion Officer, Dehradun t o decide t he pet it ioner ’s case in t he light of t he decision rendered by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in M.S. Mudhol & Anr. Vs. S.D. Halegar & Ors., Pram od Kum ar vs. U.P. Secondary Educat ion Services Com m ission & Ors., and t he decision of t he Hon’ble Calcut t a High Court in Moham m ad Abu Naser Vs. St at e of West Bengal & Ors., as expedit iously as possible, preferably wit hin 12 weeks from t he dat e of present at ion of a cert ified copy of t he order. Thereaft er, t he represent at ion of t he pet it ioner was ult im at ely decided by t he Chief Educat ion Officer, Dehradun on

24.05.2025, wherein he has held t hat at t he t im e of her appoint m ent , t he pet it ioner does not possess eit her t he essent ial educat ional qualificat ion or professional qualificat ion, t herefore, t he order of dism issal cannot be int erfered wit h. Thus, feeling aggrieved, pet it ioner has approached t his Court , seeking t he following reliefs: - i. To set aside/ quash t he j udgm ent and or der dat ed 10.03.2025 passed by lear ned Public 4 Services Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim Pet it ion No.97/ BD/ 2023, wher eby t he claim pet it ion of t he pet it ioner has been disposed off by direct ing t he Chief Educat ion Officer , Dehradun t o decide t he case of t he pet it ioner in light of t he j udgm ent s of t he Hon’ble Apex Court . ii. t he aside/ quash dat ed To 24.05.2025 passed by Chief Educat ion Officer , t he represent at ion of t he pet it ioner has been dat ed t erm inat ion rej ect ed 08.02.2023 has been upheld. Dehradun, wher eby iii. Direct t he aut horit ies t o pay t he salary t o t he init ial pet it ioner t erm inat ion 09.11.2015 i.e. reinst at em ent i.e. on 20.10.2022. t he dat e of her t ill

3. The m ain ground canvassed by t he pet it ioner for challenging t he im pugned orders is t hat she has rendered eight years’ cont inuous sat isfact ory service before t erm inat ion neit her m isrepresent ed before t he aut horit y nor have filed any forged educat ional and professional cert ificat es at t he t im e of her appoint m ent and furt her t hat she has gained experience as a t eacher during t he aforesaid period, t herefore, t aking int o account all t hese fact ors, her t erm inat ion order should be set aside.

4. Per cont ra, learned counsel t he St at e subm it t ed t hat t he pet it ioner does not possess t he requisit e educat ional as well professional qualificat ions, which were required m andat ory, as per 5 t he relevant service rules, t herefore, pet it ioner has right ly been t erm inat ed from service. I n order t o but t ress his cont ent ion, learned counsel for t he St at e placed reliance upon t he j udgm ent rendered by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of ‘M.S. Pat il ( DR.) vs. Gulbarga Universit y and Ot hers, report ed in ( 2010) 10 SCC 63. The relevant ext ract of t he j udgm ent reads as under: - “ 15. Once t he fact s of t he case are narrat ed, t her e rem ains hardly anyt hing t o adj udicat e upon. The fact s of t he case lead t o only one conclusion t hat t he appellant w as w rongly appoint ed t o a post t hat was reserved for ` Group B' cat egory . The High Court has also found t hat t he appellant 's select ion for appoint m ent t o t he post was t aint ed by t he part icipat ion of t he Head of t he Depart m ent of Kannada, who was r elat ed t o him , in t he select ion I n circum st ances, all t hat is needed is t o dism iss t he appeal wit hout fur t her ado. process. t hose fact s

16. But at t his st age once again a st rong appeal is m ade t o let t he appellant cont inue on t he post wher e he has already worked for over 17 years. Mr. Pat il, lear ned senior counsel, appearing for t he appellant , subm it t ed t hat t hrowing him out aft er m ore t han 17 y ears would be very hard and unfair t o him since now he cannot ev en go back t o t he college where he worked as lect urer and from wher e he had r esigned t o j oin t o t his post .

17. We are unim pressed. I n service law t her e is no place for t he concept s of adv er se possession or som e Univer sit y holding aut horit ies and t he grat uit ous cir cum st ances of t he int erim order s passed by t he Court and t he ov er. Helped 6 delay in final disposal of t he m at er, t he appellant has been occupying t he post , for all t hese y ears t o som eone else. The t hat equit able consider at ions are, t hus, act ually against him rat her t han in his favour. lawfully belonged

5. Learned counsel t he St at e has furt her placed reliance upon t he j udgm ent rendered by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of ‘Pram od Kum ar vs. U.P. Secondary Educat ion Services Com m ission and Ot hers, report ed in ( 2008) 7 SCC 153. The relevant ext ract of t he j udgm ent reads as under: - “ 18. I f t he essent ial educat ional qualificat ion for recr uit m ent t o a post is not sat isfied, or dinarily t he sam e cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be rat ified. An appoint m ent w hich is cont rary t o t he st at ut e/ st at ut ory rules would be void in law. An illegalit y cannot be r egularized, part icularly, when t he st at ut e in no unm ist akable t erm say s so.”

6. I n view of t he adm it t ed fact t hat t he pet it ioner does not possess t he requisit e educat ional as well as professional qualificat ion at t he t im e of her appoint m ent as Assist ant Teacher, Prim ary School, t his Court does not find any infirm ity in t he orders im pugned in t he writ pet it ion, as t he pet it ioner does not possess t he requisit e educat ional as well as professional qualificat ions t o hold t he post . Therefore, t his Court refrains t o ent ert ain t his writ pet it ion, as it lacks m erit . 7

7. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion st ands dism issed. There shall be no order as t o cost s. ( G. N A REN D A R, C. J.) ( A LOK M A H RA , J.) Dat ed: 15.07.2025 BS BALWAN T SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a1 7c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB 553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA9 0, cn=BALWANT SINGH 8