Allowed

Pradeep Bhatt v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC21 Mar 2014WPSS/418/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a promotion dispute for an Assistant Teacher post, the court ruled that a candidate selected as O.B.C. must be appointed over another who applied as General and later sought O.B.C. consideration. The court directed appointment with efforts to adjust the petitioner if no other seat exists.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be appointed as Assistant Teacher; respondents to make a seat arrangement within eight weeks.

Pradeep Bhatt Vs State Of Uttarakhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 418 OF 2013

¶2

Pradeep Bhatt … Petitioner

¶3

¶4

State of Uttar Pradesh & others … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pandey, Brief Holder, present for the State of Uttarakhand Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, present for respondent No. 3. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate, present for respondent No. 4.

¶6

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

¶7

The petitioner before this Court was a candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Physical Education) in the category of Other Backward Class ( hereinafter referred to as “O.B.C.” ). The petitioner, admittedly, appeared in the said examination as O.B.C. category candidate and duly selected as such. Before the petitioner could be formally appointed, respondent No. 4 – Anup Rawat filed a writ petition (S/S) No. 1253 of 2011 before this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider his candidature as O.B.C. category candidate for the said post. He also refers to a corrigendum dated 07/10.06.2011 published in the news paper by which the marks obtained by each of the candidates were published in the website and in case any candidate has any objection to the marks he has received, he would make a representation to the authority concerned. The contention of respondent No. 4 was not regarding the marks, however, he sought relief for consideration of his candidature as O.B.C. Candidate.

¶8

Admittedly, respondent No. 4 has moved his application for the said post as a “General” candidate. It was only after the said corrigendum published in the

¶9

¶10

newspaper that the respondent obtained his O.B.C. certificate and submits it afresh with the authority concerned. This could not have been permitted, particularly in view of the admitted position that a candidate i.e. the present petitioner had already been selected. However, by the impugned order, respondents/authorities have considered the claim of respondent No. 4 as an O.B.C. candidate and given him appointment. Respondent No. 4 has been working since 02.04.2013 as an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Physical Education).

¶11

It is not disputed that the petitioner has filed a writ petition (WPSS No. 1253 of 2011) before this Court and this Court disposed of the same vide order dated 06.03.2012. This Court passed following order while disposing of the writ petition:-

¶12

“In spite of a stop order, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, this petition is disposed of with the following direction-

¶14

The petitioner will make an appropriate representation with regard to his grievance annexing the earlier representation, if any, upon filing of such representation, the authority concerned will consider and decide the matter by a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.”

¶15

From the perusal of the above order, it appears that there was no such direction of this Court to consider the claim of the petitioner as an O.B.C. candidate. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 has filed his application form as a “General” category candidate, therefore, his

¶16

¶17

candidature was liable to be considered as “General” candidate only. It is not his case that due to mistake or any other factor he could not annexed his O.B.C. certificate earlier, in fact, the O.B.C. certificate he has obtained subsequent to the selection process when application forms were already filed. Moreover, it is more important as it would cause great injustice and undue hardship to the petitioner, in case the authority could not select respondent No. 4.

¶18

A statement has been given by Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that had respondent No. 4 not placed his claim under the O.B.C. category candidate, it was the petitioner who was liable to be appointed in the said post.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds. The petitioner shall be given appointment as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade, after considering his eligibility and qualification for the said post. Since respondent No. 4 already working for almost a year, efforts shall first be made to adjust the petitioner on any other seat or vacancy of O.B.C. category candidate. However, in case it cannot be made then the petitioner shall be given appointment in place of respondent No. 4. Let the needful be done within eight weeks from today.

¶20

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

¶21

21.03.2014 ASWAL

Pradeep Bhatt v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Bhatt 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

Pan Singh Bohara Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Bir Singh Bisht Vs Union Of India and Others

Smt Uma Devi Vs Commander Officer Incharge and Others

Mohit Saini Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Ranjan Upreti Vs Union Of India and Others

Jaya Devi Vs Kundan Singh