Allowed

Santosh Muni v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC1 May 2019WPSS/727/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation to upgrade his post from Assistant Lecturer Vedanta to Lecturer Vedanta, directing the authorities to reconsider the matter within ten weeks due to misreading of regulations.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.02.2014 is quashed; the petitioner is directed to have his representation reconsidered by the Director within ten weeks.

Santosh Muni Vs State Of Uttarakhand and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPSS No. 727 of 2014 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶3

Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶4

Mr. Pramod Bailwal, Advocate for respondent no. 5.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer Vedanta in Sri Devi Sampad Adhyatma Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Parmarth Niketan, Swargashram, Rishikesh w.e.f. 05.01.2010. Earlier, he filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1866 of 2018 seeking a direction to the authorities to change his designation & post from Assistant Lecturer Vedanta to the post of Lecturer Vedanta and to grant all benefits for the post of Lecturer Vedanta from the date of his appointment. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 05.12.2013 with a direction to Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand to decide petitioner’s representation within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶7

In terms of the order passed by this Court, the Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand has decided petitioner’s representation vide order dated 28.02.2014. Since the relief sought by the petitioner in his representation has not been granted to him, therefore, petitioner has again approached this Court challenging the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand, in the impugned order, has wrongly relied upon the provisions contained in Regulation (xv) of Uttarakhand Sanskrit

¶9

University (Ist Amendment) Regulations, 2009. According to him, provision relied upon by Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand does not empower Director, Sanskrit Education to convert the post from one subject to another. In support of his submission, he has annexed Regulation (xv) of the amended Regulations, 2009, which is at page no. 60 of the writ petition.

¶10

A bare perusal of Regulation (xv) of the amended Regulations, 2009, it is evident that, after determination of vacancies, the Manager is required to advertise the same in at least two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the State. It is further evident that such an advertisement shall be issued after obtaining due permission from the Director, Sanskrit Education, Directorate, however, it is nowhere mentioned that Director, Sanskrit Education is competent to convert the post from one subject to another.

¶11

Since Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand has completely misread the provision contained in Regulation (xv) of the amended Regulations, 2009 while rejecting petitioner’s claim, therefore, the order passed by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand deserves to be quashed. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.02.2014 passed by Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand is quashed. The Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand is directed to reconsider petitioner’s representation, in accordance with law, within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

There will be no order as to costs.

¶13

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)

¶14

Arpan 01.05.2019

Santosh Muni v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Muni 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

Kusum Lata Rana Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Sushma Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Badri Datt Vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Another

Inder Lal Sah Vs Ministry Of Agriculture and Others

Miss Chandrakala Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others