Disposed

Rashid Ali Khan v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC3 May 2019WPSS/1573/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging differential notional appointment dates between himself and other selected candidates who received benefits earlier, the Single Bench avoided deciding the merits of the delay claim. Instead, it permitted the petitioner to approach the Director, Primary Education, Uttarakhand to seek an afresh decision within a specified time frame.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty to make representation; matter to be decided afresh by competent authority within eight weeks.

Rashid Ali Khan Vs State Of Uttarakhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPSS No. 1573 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶4

Petitioner responded to an advertisement dated 06.08.1995, whereby applications were invited for the post of Urdu Teacher in Government Primary Schools. After due selection, he was appointed in Government Primary school, Timili, Vikasnagar on 01.08.1997, where he joined duties on 06.08.1997. Subsequently due to intervention by some politician, petitioner’s services were terminated vide order dated 14.08.1997. Petitioner challenged his termination before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. His writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer, Dehradun to decide his representation. Petitioner’s representation was rejected vide order dated 14.05.1997, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing WPSS No. 5358 of 2001. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.12.2003 with direction to the Competent Authority to consider petitioner’s candidature for the post of Urdu Teacher against the available vacancy in district Dehradun. In terms of the order of this Court, petitioner was re-appointed as Urdu Teacher vide order dated 27.05.2004.

¶5

According to the petitioner, other candidates including Sajjad Hussain, who had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.08.1995 and were declared successful in the selection for the post of Urdu Teacher, were denied appointment, consequently, they filed Writ Petition before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, which was disposed of on 28.01.1997 with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider the representation made by them. Their representation was rejected by an order dated 26.04.1997 on the ground that Hon’ble Education Minister has banned appointment on Urdu Teacher vide order dated 06.08.1997. Against the rejection of their

¶6

representation, those selected candidates filed Writ Petition No. 19112 of 1997, which was transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as WPSS No. 2972 of 2001. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed as infructuous.

¶7

A Review Application was filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition with the contention that the writ petition filed by Rashid Ali Khan (petitioner herein) was disposed of with direction to consider his candidature for appointment, therefore, similar direction may be issued in their favour also. The said review, however, was dismissed on 15.07.2005.

¶8

Those selected candidates thereafter filed Special Appeal No. 32 of 2005, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Against dismissal of the said appeal, an S.L.P. was filed and Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that their Special Appeal be decided on merit.

¶9

Ultimately, the said Special Appeal, which was renumbered as Special Appeal No. 61 of 2008 was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.03.2010. Paragraph nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the said judgment are extracted below:-

¶10

“6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has raised only one submission, namely, that Rashid Ali Khan, who had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.5358 of 2001 which was disposed of by an order dated 10.12.2003 requiring the respondents to consider his claim for appointment to the post of Urdu teacher, was identically placed as the appellants herein, inasmuch as, he had also responded to the advertisement which was originally issued in the newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ on 06.08.1995. His selection depicted in the order dated 01.08. 1997 (Annexure SA-2) was based on the same selection process, in which the appellants had participated. The appellants had also been selected in the said selection process. Whereas the aforesaid Rashid Ali Khan was placed at serial No.1 in the merit list in furtherance of the direction issued by this Court on 10.12.2003 (whereby Writ Petition (S/S) No.5358 of 2001 was disposed of) resulted in the respondents unilaterally giving him appointment against the post of Urdu teacher, vide order dated 27.05.2004. The case of the appellants is, that the appellants are

¶11

identically situated to the aforesaid Rashid Ali Khan, and accordingly deserve to be appointed in the same manner as Rashid Ali Khan was appointed against the post of Urdu teacher.

¶12

When confronted with the factual position noticed in the foregoing paragraph, learned counsel for the respondents could not distinguish the case of the appellants from that of Rashid Ali Khan, who had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 5358 of 2001 except that the appellants herein were placed at a position inferior to the aforesaid Rashid Ali Khan in the final select list.

¶13

In view of the factual position depicted hereinabove pertaining to the appellants as also Rashid Ali Khan, who had also approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.5358 of 2001, we are satisfied that the appellants also deserve to be appointed as Urdu teachers in the same manner as the aforesaid Rashid Ali Khan was appointed vide order dated 27.05.2004. We hereby accordingly direct the respondents to issue an order in favour of the appellants similar to the one issued in favour of the aforesaid Rashid Ali Khan dated 27.05.2004. Despite the aforesaid direction, it is imperative for us to clarify, that although the appellants would be deemed to be appointed against the posts of Urdu teacher in the same manner as the aforesaid Rashid Ali Khan, they would not be entitled to wages till the date of disposal of the present special appeal in terms of the principle of no work no pay.

¶14

Having disposed of the instant special appeal in the manner expressed hereinabove, learned counsel for the respondents points out that some of the appellants, namely, appellant Nos. 3, 8 and 11 (Hashmat Fatma, Shahida Begum and Azra Parveen respectively) had also participated in the selection process conducted by the respondents through the advertisement dated 19.09.2004 (already referred to hereinabove), it is submitted that the aforesaid appellants are already rendering service as Urdu teachers as they were also selected in response to the subsequent process of selection. As such, it is submitted, that they cannot be granted any further benefit. Having considered the instant contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, all that needs to be clarified is, that the order already passed by us shall undoubtedly also apply to appellant Nos. 3, 8 and 11, however, the same would result in merely vesting a notional date of appointment in their favour, and also consequential benefits thereof in terms of the instant order.

¶15

The instant special appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.”

¶16

Pursuant to the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 61 of 2008, other selected candidates were also appointed by the District Education Officer (Elementary) Dehradun.

¶17

Grievance of the petitioner is that the other selected candidates, who filed Special Appeal No. 32 of 2005 (re-numbered as 61 of 2008) were notionally appointed w.e.f. 01.08.1997 while petitioner was given notional appointment w.e.f. 01.04.2006. Consequently, those persons were given certain benefits, which were not given to the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that persons, who were appellants in Special Appeal No. 61 of 2008 were also untrained and were identically placed as the petitioner, therefore, petitioner could not have been singled out for notional appointment w.e.f. 01.04.2006

¶19

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if petitioner is permitted to make representation to the competent authority, which shall be decided by the competent authority within some specified time frame.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to the Director, Primary Education, Uttarakhand within two weeks from today. If such representation is made, Director, Primary Education, Uttarakhand shall look into the matter and shall take appropriate decision afresh by ignoring the impugned order dated 18.05.2015, in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order.

¶21

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶22

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)

¶23

Navin 03.05.2019

Rashid Ali Khan v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid Ali Khan 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

Karan Singh Tatwal and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt Sangeeta Bisht Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt Seema Devi Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Kamleshwar Prasad Saklani Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shatrughan Jha Vs State and Another

Vivekswaroop Srivastava Vs Smt. Jyoti