Service matter - Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade - last date was preponed - mark list was submitted belatedly - his selection was rejected on that count - High court order to give posting from date of selection - filed appeal and obtained interim orders - Additional Director instead of following the orders of High court , reviewed the order of High court and refused to give posting - Apex court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders of High court =
learned Single Judge had
directed by Order dated 10.3.2008 that the case of the Respondent before
us, (namely, Kanhaya Lal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1478 of 2003)
be considered within three months for appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, if there is no other impediment in his
selection (emphasis added). =
“he is not challenging the appointment as such but his only grievance is
that respondent cannot claim appointment from 1997”, had been recorded.=
On a perusal of the SLP paper book, we are disturbed to note that
pursuant to the Orders of the learned Single Judge, the Additional Director
of Education, Garwal Division, Pohri, instead of investigating the aspect
whether or not any other obstacles existed, has revisited the entire case
and has virtually over-ruled the Order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Having perused the Report/Order of the Additional Director of Education,
Pohri dated 23.5.2008, it would be possible to view his action as
contemptuous of the Orders of the High Court=
We also note the
averment in the Special Leave Petition to the effect that the Respondent
(writ petitioner) already stands selected and appointed as Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade on 4.10.2005 in Government Inter-college,
Kamadh, Uttarakashi.
To scotch any further misunderstanding, we direct the
State of Uttarakhand to appoint the Respondent to the post of Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, i.e. the advertised post, treating the writ
petitioner to have been appointed along with the other candidates who were
selected in response to the subject advertisement for appointment to the
post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade.
His seniority shall,
therefore, be fixed such that it is not detrimental to the services already
rendered by him.
7 The Special Leave Petition is wholly devoid of merit and is
dismissed. Interim Orders are recalled.
2014 ( April.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41497
DIPAK MISRA, VIKRAMAJIT SEN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION© No. 4495 OF 2013
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. .…..PETITIONERS
Versus
KANHAYA LAL …..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.
1 By means of this Special Leave Petition the endeavour of the
petitioner, State of Uttarakhand, is to dislodge and reverse the findings
of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in
Writ Petition No.1478 of 2003, which Order has been affirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No.146 of 2008. After
going into the factual matrix of the case, the learned Single Judge had
directed by Order dated 10.3.2008 that the case of the Respondent before
us, (namely, Kanhaya Lal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1478 of 2003)
be considered within three months for appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, if there is no other impediment in his
selection (emphasis added). Dissatisfied with this direction, the
Special Appeal came to be filed in which the Hon’ble Division Bench had
opined that there was no error in the impugned Order of the learned Single
Judge, and, accordingly, the Special Appeal deserved to be dismissed.
There are, accordingly, concurrent findings of facts and law before us.
2 On the first date of hearing before this Court, the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand to the effect that
“he is not challenging the appointment as such but his only grievance is
that respondent cannot claim appointment from 1997”, had been recorded.
3 On a perusal of the SLP paper book, we are disturbed to note that
pursuant to the Orders of the learned Single Judge, the Additional Director
of Education, Garwal Division, Pohri, instead of investigating the aspect
whether or not any other obstacles existed, has revisited the entire case
and has virtually over-ruled the Order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Having perused the Report/Order of the Additional Director of Education,
Pohri dated 23.5.2008, it would be possible to view his action as
contemptuous of the Orders of the High Court. The learned Single Judge
had directed for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Language)
L.T. Grade “unless there was some other impediment in selection”. As we
have already opined, the Additional Director of Education has not disclosed
“any other impediment” and instead has merely reiterated the already
articulated case of the State, which had not found favour with the High
Court. It is palpably clear that the Additional Director of Education,
Garwal Division, Pauri, has contumaciously adorned itself with appellate
powers over the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
We shall desist from making any further directions, however, leaving it
open to the respondent to initiate proceedings, if so advised.
4 In the impugned Order, the learned Division Bench has noted that the
first advertisement clearly indicated the last date for submission of
Application to be 21st November, 1997, which was advanced and preponed to
10th November, 1997 in terms of a “vague corrigendum” issued on 24th
October, 1997. It is trite that in matters concerning appointment to
Government posts, fair play and good conscience, along with adherence to
equity, are paramount prescriptions. In the case in hand, the only
infirmity in the Application of the Respondent was that he had failed to
include his Marksheet along with his Application Form, which was submitted
by him on 4.11.1997; he had made full compliance by personally filing his
Marksheet on 12.11.1997. Keeping in perspective the fact that a
corrigendum has been issued preponing the last date of submission of Forms
from 21.11.1997 to 10.11.1997, it would have been advisable and prudent to
infuse some elasticity or laxity in the observance of the last date for
submission of forms. The Respondent is justifiably perturbed by the
situation that the last appointed candidate had 55.6 quality points whereas
he possessed much higher merit, i.e. 58.4 quality points.
5 We do not wish to make any further observations on the approach and
the conduct of the Additional Director of Education, Garwal Region, Pohri,
in terms of his Order dated 23.5.2008. In this case, the writ petitioner
is a Teacher and it is unfair to him to be repeatedly drawn into fighting
futile, if not frivolous litigation by the State. It has become the
practice of the State to carry on filing appeals even where the case does
not deserve it, knowing fully well that private respondents will be
physically fatigued and economically emasculated in pursuing protracted
litigation.
6 The Order/Report of the Additional Director of Education, Garwal
Division, Pohri, passed on 23.5.2008 is wholly contrary to the directions
given by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as it fails to unravel any
“other impediment” in granting appointment to the writ petitioner after
treating his Application to be in conformity with the subject advertisement
as per the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We also note the
averment in the Special Leave Petition to the effect that the Respondent
(writ petitioner) already stands selected and appointed as Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade on 4.10.2005 in Government Inter-college,
Kamadh, Uttarakashi. To scotch any further misunderstanding, we direct the
State of Uttarakhand to appoint the Respondent to the post of Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, i.e. the advertised post, treating the writ
petitioner to have been appointed along with the other candidates who were
selected in response to the subject advertisement for appointment to the
post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade. His seniority shall,
therefore, be fixed such that it is not detrimental to the services already
rendered by him.
7 The Special Leave Petition is wholly devoid of merit and is
dismissed. Interim Orders are recalled. We would have awarded costs but
refrain from doing so because the respondent-Kanhaya Lal has not put in any
representation.
............................................J.
[DIPAK MISRA]
............................................J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
New Delhi
April 29, 2014.
-----------------------
6
learned Single Judge had
directed by Order dated 10.3.2008 that the case of the Respondent before
us, (namely, Kanhaya Lal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1478 of 2003)
be considered within three months for appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, if there is no other impediment in his
selection (emphasis added). =
“he is not challenging the appointment as such but his only grievance is
that respondent cannot claim appointment from 1997”, had been recorded.=
On a perusal of the SLP paper book, we are disturbed to note that
pursuant to the Orders of the learned Single Judge, the Additional Director
of Education, Garwal Division, Pohri, instead of investigating the aspect
whether or not any other obstacles existed, has revisited the entire case
and has virtually over-ruled the Order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Having perused the Report/Order of the Additional Director of Education,
Pohri dated 23.5.2008, it would be possible to view his action as
contemptuous of the Orders of the High Court=
We also note the
averment in the Special Leave Petition to the effect that the Respondent
(writ petitioner) already stands selected and appointed as Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade on 4.10.2005 in Government Inter-college,
Kamadh, Uttarakashi.
To scotch any further misunderstanding, we direct the
State of Uttarakhand to appoint the Respondent to the post of Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, i.e. the advertised post, treating the writ
petitioner to have been appointed along with the other candidates who were
selected in response to the subject advertisement for appointment to the
post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade.
His seniority shall,
therefore, be fixed such that it is not detrimental to the services already
rendered by him.
7 The Special Leave Petition is wholly devoid of merit and is
dismissed. Interim Orders are recalled.
2014 ( April.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41497
DIPAK MISRA, VIKRAMAJIT SEN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION© No. 4495 OF 2013
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. .…..PETITIONERS
Versus
KANHAYA LAL …..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.
1 By means of this Special Leave Petition the endeavour of the
petitioner, State of Uttarakhand, is to dislodge and reverse the findings
of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in
Writ Petition No.1478 of 2003, which Order has been affirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No.146 of 2008. After
going into the factual matrix of the case, the learned Single Judge had
directed by Order dated 10.3.2008 that the case of the Respondent before
us, (namely, Kanhaya Lal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1478 of 2003)
be considered within three months for appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, if there is no other impediment in his
selection (emphasis added). Dissatisfied with this direction, the
Special Appeal came to be filed in which the Hon’ble Division Bench had
opined that there was no error in the impugned Order of the learned Single
Judge, and, accordingly, the Special Appeal deserved to be dismissed.
There are, accordingly, concurrent findings of facts and law before us.
2 On the first date of hearing before this Court, the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand to the effect that
“he is not challenging the appointment as such but his only grievance is
that respondent cannot claim appointment from 1997”, had been recorded.
3 On a perusal of the SLP paper book, we are disturbed to note that
pursuant to the Orders of the learned Single Judge, the Additional Director
of Education, Garwal Division, Pohri, instead of investigating the aspect
whether or not any other obstacles existed, has revisited the entire case
and has virtually over-ruled the Order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Having perused the Report/Order of the Additional Director of Education,
Pohri dated 23.5.2008, it would be possible to view his action as
contemptuous of the Orders of the High Court. The learned Single Judge
had directed for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Language)
L.T. Grade “unless there was some other impediment in selection”. As we
have already opined, the Additional Director of Education has not disclosed
“any other impediment” and instead has merely reiterated the already
articulated case of the State, which had not found favour with the High
Court. It is palpably clear that the Additional Director of Education,
Garwal Division, Pauri, has contumaciously adorned itself with appellate
powers over the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
We shall desist from making any further directions, however, leaving it
open to the respondent to initiate proceedings, if so advised.
4 In the impugned Order, the learned Division Bench has noted that the
first advertisement clearly indicated the last date for submission of
Application to be 21st November, 1997, which was advanced and preponed to
10th November, 1997 in terms of a “vague corrigendum” issued on 24th
October, 1997. It is trite that in matters concerning appointment to
Government posts, fair play and good conscience, along with adherence to
equity, are paramount prescriptions. In the case in hand, the only
infirmity in the Application of the Respondent was that he had failed to
include his Marksheet along with his Application Form, which was submitted
by him on 4.11.1997; he had made full compliance by personally filing his
Marksheet on 12.11.1997. Keeping in perspective the fact that a
corrigendum has been issued preponing the last date of submission of Forms
from 21.11.1997 to 10.11.1997, it would have been advisable and prudent to
infuse some elasticity or laxity in the observance of the last date for
submission of forms. The Respondent is justifiably perturbed by the
situation that the last appointed candidate had 55.6 quality points whereas
he possessed much higher merit, i.e. 58.4 quality points.
5 We do not wish to make any further observations on the approach and
the conduct of the Additional Director of Education, Garwal Region, Pohri,
in terms of his Order dated 23.5.2008. In this case, the writ petitioner
is a Teacher and it is unfair to him to be repeatedly drawn into fighting
futile, if not frivolous litigation by the State. It has become the
practice of the State to carry on filing appeals even where the case does
not deserve it, knowing fully well that private respondents will be
physically fatigued and economically emasculated in pursuing protracted
litigation.
6 The Order/Report of the Additional Director of Education, Garwal
Division, Pohri, passed on 23.5.2008 is wholly contrary to the directions
given by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as it fails to unravel any
“other impediment” in granting appointment to the writ petitioner after
treating his Application to be in conformity with the subject advertisement
as per the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We also note the
averment in the Special Leave Petition to the effect that the Respondent
(writ petitioner) already stands selected and appointed as Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade on 4.10.2005 in Government Inter-college,
Kamadh, Uttarakashi. To scotch any further misunderstanding, we direct the
State of Uttarakhand to appoint the Respondent to the post of Assistant
Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, i.e. the advertised post, treating the writ
petitioner to have been appointed along with the other candidates who were
selected in response to the subject advertisement for appointment to the
post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade. His seniority shall,
therefore, be fixed such that it is not detrimental to the services already
rendered by him.
7 The Special Leave Petition is wholly devoid of merit and is
dismissed. Interim Orders are recalled. We would have awarded costs but
refrain from doing so because the respondent-Kanhaya Lal has not put in any
representation.
............................................J.
[DIPAK MISRA]
............................................J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
New Delhi
April 29, 2014.
-----------------------
6
