Allowed

Smt Manju Giri v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC18 Nov 2014WPSS/1609/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition wherein a teacher candidate challenged her rejection due to a lapse in Employment Exchange registration renewal, holding that the rejecting authority failed to provide an opportunity to regularize her status.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.10.2014 quashed; mandamus issued for immediate appointment within six weeks unless ineligibility exists.

Smt Manju Giri Vs State Of Uttarakhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition No. 1609 (S/S) of 2014

¶3

Smt. Manju Giri ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …..…..Respondents

¶4

Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Brief Ho^{lder, for the State.}

¶5

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today in the Court by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 is taken on record.

¶7

The petitioner before this Court was a candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School for District Almora. She has admittedly all the qualifications, including B.Ed. and Teacher’s Eligibility Test ( in short “TET” ), which are minimum prescribed qualification for the said post. The candidature of the petitioner was considered, however, in the counseling the petitioner was informed though the name of the petitioner was registered with the Employment Exchange, but the same has not been renewed, therefore, her candidature is rejected.

¶8

The admitted fact is that the petitioner was registered with the Employment Office, Udham Singh Nagar on 19.11.2007, which was valid upto 13.11.2010 and thereafter she renewed the same upto November, 2013, but thereafter, she did not renewed it in time, whereas the renewal was only sought by her in the month of March, 2014 and the Employment Officer, Udham Singh Nagar issued her fresh registration certificate to the petitioner on 25.03.2014.

¶9

In the counter affidavit the stand of the State Government is that on the date of the relevant date the petitioner was not registered with the Employment Exchange. Though registration with the Employment Exchange is a basic requirement, as per the Government Order placed

¶10

¶11

before this Court, but the fact that petitioner was registered initially has not been denied. It was merely a lapse on the part of the petitioner for not having renewed the registration, which was subsequently done. Moreover, if for a certain period, the name of the petitioner does not figure in the Employment Exchange this itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In any case the select list was announced on 28.09.2014, and by that time the petitioner was already registered with the Employment Exchange.

¶12

Considering that her name was registered initially with the Employment Exchange, at best the respondents, who had noticed this irregularity in the candidature of the petitioner could have given the petitioner appropriate time to get itself registered with the Employment Exchange. This has not been done in the present case. Therefore, nonconsideration of the petitioner case for appointment seems to be arbitrary.

¶13

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.10.2014 passed by respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed.

¶14

A mandamus is hereby issued to the respondent to appoint the petitioner forthwith on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, unless there is some other ineligibility attached to the petitioner.

¶15

Let the needful be done as expeditiously as possible, but definitely within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶16

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.11.2014

¶17

Nitesh

Smt Manju Giri v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manju Giri v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Sunita Joshi Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Mahesh Chandra Agarwal Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Lalit Miglani Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

G.m.t.d. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Custom and Central Excise

Jagmohan and Others Vs General Manager Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan and Others

Roop Chandra and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others