Dismissed

Shyam Singh Panwar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC10 Sept 2025WPSS/1206/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant teachers challenged chargesheets alleging their B.Ed. degrees were from an institute not recognized by UGC/NCTE. The Court held the petitions premature since only a reply was sought and no civil consequence had ensued, and dismissed them with liberty to contest the disciplinary proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shyam Singh Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Education and Admissions | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:8004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1206 of 2025

¶3

Shyam Singh Panwar … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents

¶6

With

¶7

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 39 of 2025 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 55 of 2025 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 58 of 2025 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 59 of 2025 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 61 of 2025 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 64 of 2025 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1203 of 2025 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1204 of 2025 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1209 of 2025 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1210 of 2025 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1211 of 2025

¶8

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional CSC, with Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel, for the State.

¶10

10.9.2025

¶11

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

¶12

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1206 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed here.

¶13

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

¶14

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned charge

¶15

¶16

2025:UHC:8004

¶17

sheet dated 30-12-2024 (copy Annexure No. 9 to the Writ Petition) with all consequential disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

¶18

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner pursuant to charge sheet dated 30-12-2024.”

¶19

It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School in the month of April, 2005 and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Teacher in a Government Junior High School on 21.5.2021. According to petitioner, he has rendered nearly 20 years of service and the chargesheet, which has been issued against him, is illegal and unsustainable as the qualification possessed by the petitioner cannot be questioned after 20 years.

¶20

Chargesheet issued against the petitioner by the District Education Officer (Elementary), Uttarkashi is on record as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The sole allegation in the chargesheet is that petitioner secured appointment as Assistant Teacher based on B.Ed. degree awarded by Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, however the said institute is not included in the list of recognized institutions by UGC.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not appointed based on B.Ed. qualification and he was appointed on the

¶22

¶23

2025:UHC:8004

¶24

strength of Special BTC Training undergone by the petitioner.

¶25

Learned State Counsel, however, contends that the institute, which issued B.Ed. degree to the petitioner is not recognized by University Grants Commission, therefore it is not competent to award any degree. He further submits that Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur is not recognized by NCTE, which also proves that the B.Ed. degree possessed by the petitioner is not valid for appointment as teacher. Learned State Counsel further submits that Special BTC Training was imparted to valid B.Ed. qualification holders in order to prepare them for employment as teacher in basic/primary schools and candidates, who obtained B.Ed. degree from Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, were not permitted to participate in Special BTC Training, as is admitted in para 6 of the writ petition and petitioner was given admission in Special BTC Training course pursuant to order dated 21.2.2004, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 97/2004. Thus learned State Counsel submits that the B.Ed. degree possessed by the petitioner was from a fake institute, not recognized by UGC or NCTE. Thus petitioner lacks the basic qualification needed for appointment as teacher.

¶26

Learned State Counsel further submits that the writ petition is pre-mature and ill-advised, as no punishment is inflicted upon the petitioner and he has simply been asked to give reply to the

¶27

¶28

2025:UHC:8004

¶29

chargesheet. He submits that petitioner would get fair trial during disciplinary enquiry and he will have the opportunity to prove his innocence during the course of the enquiry.

¶30

This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel that the writ petition is pre-mature. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported as (2006) 12 SCC 28, has held as under:

¶31

“ 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or chargesheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.”

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Another, reported as 1990 Supp SCC

¶33

¶34

2025:UHC:8004

¶35

The said judgment is distinguishable on facts. The B.Ed. degree, on the strength of which petitioner secured appointment, if found to be invalid, goes to the very root of the matter and makes him ineligible for appointment as teacher. A person, who lacks the essential condition of eligibility for appointment as teacher, cannot be permitted to serve as teacher, especially when the requirement of possessing B.Ed. degree from an institute recognized by National Council for Teacher Education is prescribed by statute. As per UGC Act, degree can be awarded only by a University, recognized by UGC, and degree issued by University/Institute, not recognized by UGC, is not valid for appointment.

¶36

The question whether the B.Ed. degree possessed by the petitioner is valid or invalid for appointment as teacher has to be decided in the disciplinary enquiry. Petitioner has simply been asked to give reply to the charge against him. Since no civil consequence has ensued to the petitioner by issuance of chargesheet, therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed as pre-mature with liberty to petitioners to give reply to the chargesheet and participate in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶37

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

¶38

¶39

PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 18:03:36 +05'30'

¶40

Shyam Singh Panwar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shyam Singh Panwar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Chandra Phulera Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand

G S Matiyani and Sons Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madarsa Aehle Sunnat Riyajul Uloom Badi Masjid Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bhagirathi Enclave Residents Welfare Society Vs the Collector Dehradun

Nitika Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand