Disposed

Kundan Singh Bhouriyal v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC5 Dec 2014WPSS/1973/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court framed issues regarding the appointment of Assistant Teachers in Senior Primary School in District Bageshwar, directing the District Education Officer to personally hear the petitioners on a specified date before passing a speaking order on their grievances about the promotion process.

What did the court decide?

Direction to be present before District Education Officer on 22.12.2014 for personal hearing before passing any order, followed by a fresh promotion exercise.

Kundan Singh Bhouriyal Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1973 of 2014

¶2

Kundan Singh Bhouriyal … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1974 of 2014 Vikram Singh … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1978 of 2014 Bhupal Singh … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1975 of 2014 Balwant Singh Rathour … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1979 of 2014 Navin Chandra Mishra … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1977 of 2014 Harish Chandra Joshi … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1981 of 2014 Rakesh Joshi … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1980 of 2014 Lalit Mohan Pathak … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1983 of 2014 Neeraj Pant … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1984 of 2014

¶3

¶4

Preetam Singh Rawat … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents With Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1982 of 2014 Kundan Singh Koranga … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal and Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocates, present for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Pandey and Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holders, present for the State/respondents.

¶6

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral)

¶7

All the petitioners, in the above writ petitions, are Assistant Teachers in Elementary Schools in District Bageshwar Uttarakhand. “Elementary Education” is divided into two categories i.e. from Class I to V is known as “Primary Education” and Class VI to VIII is known as “Senior Primary Education or Junior High School and together from Class I to VIII is known as “Elementary Education”.

¶8

Admittedly, a teacher, who has five years of experience in Primary School is eligible to the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior High School (Senior Primary School), and such promotion have been made strictly in accordance with “seniority”. The provisions for promotion are contained in Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 ( in short “Rules of 1981” ), which are admittedly applicable in the State of Uttarakhand.

¶9

This Court has been informed that now Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 2012, which was came into force on 21.08.2012 are applicable for such promotion. However, this matter will be covered by the old Rules of 1981 as the

¶10

¶11

matter pertains to recruitment process of 2011. In any case, even under the new Rules of 2012, the criteria for promotion for the Assistant Teacher, Primary School to Assistant Teacher, Senior Primary School is “seniority” subject to rejection of unfit and the eligibility is of five years of regular service as Assistant Teacher, Primary School.

¶12

Initially one Sushil Joshi had filed a writ petition being WPSS No. 549 of 2013 before this Court challenging promotions of some of the teachers in Primary School to the post of Assistant Teacher, Junior High School of Assistant Teacher, Senior Primary School on the ground that his juniors have been promoted and his seniority has not been considered at all in the said promotion exercise. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.06.2014 passed in WPSS No. 549 of 2013, reads as under:-

¶13

“9. In view of this fact, let the Principal Secretary and District Education Officer, Bageshwar give a fresh notice to each of the petitioners and after giving proper hearing and ascertaining all the facts, take a decision on it. If the education officers are relying upon any inquiry report, including the inquiry report of the District Magistrate, Bageshwar regarding anomaly in promotion exercise, it would be mandatory for District Education Officer to supply such material to each of the petitioners as well as any material on which reliance is being placed.

¶14

Let the entire exercise be concluded within a period of three months from today. It is also made clear that in the event the District Education Officer, Bageshwar comes to a conclusion that there was no anomaly in the promotion exercise, he shall consider granting promotion to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.549 (SS) of 2013, as their only contention is that their seniority was ignored. It is also made clear that in case the promotion of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.311 (SS) of 2014 and others writ petitions, referred above is ultimately set aside, let

¶15

¶16

them undertake an exercise for the fresh promotions as expeditiously as possible, so that, as ultimately studies of the students should not suffer. In view thereof, liberty is given to the respondents to initiate a fresh exercise for promotion.”

¶17

In the above case when the issue was raised by the petitioner Mr. Sushil Joshi and this Court had called for counter affidavit from the State Authorities during that period such Assistant Teachers, who were earlier promoted as Assistant Teacher, Senior Primary School were reverted, and they too filed writ petitions before this Court. All these matters were clubbed together and heard and order was passed on 30.06.2014. In the said order, this Court was of the opinion that since there is a report of the District Magistrate that in the present selection of Assistant Teacher, Senior Primary School in District Bageshwar, certain anomalies have been committed, the same must be corrected but in accordance with law. As far as the reversion of the petitioners is concerned, since they were not been given opportunity of hearing, their reversion was set aside with the liberty to the State to give them a hearing and pass a speaking order. In case the authority concerned come to the conclusion that such petitioners were not promoted in accordance with law, they shall commence fresh exercise for fresh promotion as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, the notices were issued to such teachers (who are all petitioners before this Court). The case of the petitioner was that they had given their reply but without considering their reply the District Education Officer has issued an advertisement for promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher, Senior Primary School, which would mean that they would now be reverted.

¶18

¶19

The short case of the petitioners is that the respondents have commenced the exercise without passing any order as contemplated in the earlier judgment of this Court in WPSS No. 549 of 2013 (decided on 30.06.2014). Based on the instructions received by learned counsel for the State, which says that no order could be passed as the petitioners were called for a meeting, but they did not cooperate in the meeting and left the meeting midway. The concerned authority, therefore, had no option but to initiate the exercise for filling up the vacancies in compliance of the Court order dated 30.06.2014.

¶20

After hearing the rival submission, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly the post of Assistant Teacher in Senior Primary School has to be filled from amongst such Assistant Teachers, Primary School, who have not completed five years of service on the date when such vacancies arose, and secondly, the promotion has to be made strictly, in accordance with law, subject to the rejection of unfit. However, before the exercise can take place, the petitioners must be given an opportunity of hearing. Although show cause notice was given to them but no order has been passed therein.

¶21

In view of the above fact, since the inordinate delay has already been caused in the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to all such petitioners are before this Court to be present before the District Education Officer, Bageshwar on 22.12.2014. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State undertakes to inform the District Education Officer, Bageshwar to be present in

¶22

¶23

the Office on the said date, who shall hear the grievance of the petitioner personally and a detail order be passed therein as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter depending upon the determination of the question, the authority concerned shall undertake the exercise for the promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher Junior High School.

¶24

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

¶25

05.12.2014

¶26

Nitesh

Kundan Singh Bhouriyal v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Singh Bhouriyal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Shekhar Patni Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Vijendra Singh Vs Union Of India and Another

Kundan Ram Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt Ruby Saini Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Parasnath Tiwari Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Ravi and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others