High Court · 2025

8. Mr. J.C. Belwal, learned counsel appearing for Management of school and learned State Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 5, however, supported judgment rendered by learned Single Judge.

9. Mr. J.C. Belwal, learned counsel Management of school submits that permission to advertise vacancies was given by DBEO Management vide order dated 13.01.2000 in which it was mentioned that lone post of Assistant Teacher (Science and Maths) shall be filled by appointing a person belonging to other backward classes and other post of Assistant Teacher (General) was reserved for person belonging to Scheduled Caste. He further submits that since appellant had crossed upper age limit fixed for appointment as Assistant Teacher and the Director, Basic Education did not grant any relaxation to appellant for appointment, therefore, he was not eligible for appointment. He further submits that DBEO had granted approval for appointing Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tamta against vacancy reserved 3 for Scheduled Caste candidates. On, 24.04.2001, Management of school passed a resolution requesting DBEO to grant approval for appointing appellant, however, appellant manufactured letter of approval and on the strength of such forged letter of approval, the Manager issued order of appointment in favour of appellant on 23.01.2002.

10. Learned State Counsel appearing respondent nos.1 to 5 submits that despite the conditions mentioned in the letter of permission issued by Competent Authority that vacancy of Assistant Teacher (Maths and Science) had to be filled by appointing a person belonging to Backward Classes, the Management recommended a person who belonged to General category for appointment against the said post, therefore, approval appointment to appellant was denied by Competent Authority and approval was given only qua Rajendra Kumar Tamta.

11. Learned State Counsel further submits that District Basic Education Officer (DBEO), Nainital never granted approval for appointing appellant and document dated 02.02.2001 enclosed as Annexure No.6 to writ petition is a forged document. He submits that the then DBEO, Mr. Mukul Kumar Sati informed that the document enclosed as Annexure No.6 to writ petition does not bear his signature. 4

12. Since unequivocal stand of Committee of Management of the concerned school as well as the State Authorities is that the Competent Authority, who grant approval for appointment, refused to approve selection and appointment of appellant on the ground that he was recommended appointment against a vacancy which was reserved for other Backward Classes and letter of approval dated 02.02.2001, on the strength of which appellant was appointed by Management was never issued by DBEO, Nanital, therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to interfere with termination order passed against appellant. Whether the letter of approval dated 02.02.2001 contains signature of the then DBEO or not, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ petition. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for dismissing the writ petition with which we concur.

13. Thus, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned. Accordingly, Special Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

14.07.2025 SS 5