Allowed

Bipin Chandra Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Nov 2022WPSS/2025/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed petitioner's application for appointment as Assistant Teacher by relying on a Division Bench judgment holding that an 18-month Diploma in Elementary Education obtained via distance mode is a valid qualification, resolving the dispute despite respondent insistence on a two-year diploma.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was decided in terms of the judgment dated 14.09.2022 rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 350 of 2021 by the Division Bench of this Court.

SL. No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPSS No. 2025 of 2022
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Amish Tewari & Mr. Kailash Chandra,
Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Addl. C.S.C. for the
State/ respondent nos. 1 & 2.

Mr.
Yogesh
Pacholia,
Advocate
for

respondent no. 3.
Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, Advocate for
respondent no. 4.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Standing Counsel for the
Union of India/respondent no. 5.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner
applied
pursuant
to
an
advertisement for appointment as Assistant Teacher
in a Government Primary School.
It is not in dispute that petitioner obtained
Diploma in Elementary Education from National
Institute of Open Schooling through distance mode,
and the course duration of such diploma is 18
months. The authorities of Education Department,
however, were insisting that, only such candidates,
who have possessed two years Diploma in
Elementary Education, alone are eligible for
appointment.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the following relief:-

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in the Government Primary school on the basis of the application made by the Petitioner.” Learned counsel for petitioner has relied
upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 350 of 2021 and other connected petitions. He thus submits that since Division Bench has held in the said judgment
that 18 months’ Diploma, obtained through distance mode from National Institute of Open Schooling, is
valid qualification for appointment as Assistant
Teacher in Government Primary School, therefore,
the writ petition may be decided in terms of the
judgment dated 14.09.2022 rendered by Division
Bench in the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsels for respondents also do not dispute the aforesaid submission made by petitioner
and they fairly concede that controversy is now
settled by Division Bench in the aforesaid
judgment.
In such view of the matter, present writ
petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated
14.09.2022 rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 350
of 2021 and other connected writ petition by
Division Bench of this Court. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 04.11.2022 Navin

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent
no. 1 and 2 to consider the candidature of the Petitioner
for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in
the Government Primary school on the basis of the
application made by the Petitioner.”
Learned counsel for petitioner has relied

upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of

this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 350 of 2021
and other connected petitions. He thus submits that
since Division Bench has held in the said judgment

that 18 months’ Diploma, obtained through distance
mode from National Institute of Open Schooling, is

valid qualification for appointment as Assistant

Teacher in Government Primary School, therefore,

the writ petition may be decided in terms of the

judgment dated 14.09.2022 rendered by Division

Bench in the aforesaid judgment.
Learned counsels for respondents also do not
dispute the aforesaid submission made by petitioner

and they fairly concede that controversy is now

settled by Division Bench in the aforesaid

judgment.

In such view of the matter, present writ

petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated

14.09.2022 rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 350

of 2021 and other connected writ petition by

Division Bench of this Court.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
04.11.2022
Navin

Bipin Chandra Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Chandra Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Datta Vs Registrar of Companies Uttarakhand

Rahiba Iqbal Vs Secretary Excise Uttarakhand Sashan Dehradun

State of Uttarakhand through Collector Vs Shri Kunwar Singh

Sitab Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Deshbandhu Inter College Pipaliya NO.1 Gadarpur Udham Singh Nagar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Harendra Singh Negi Vs the Director Panchayati Raj Uttarakhand