Disposed¶9

Renu Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Dec 2025WPSS/2077/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Premature writ petition; show-cause notice by District Education Officer dated 04.11.2025; dual domicile/permanent resident certificates (Uttarakhand and U.P.); D.El.Ed course; Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Udham Singh Nagar; Director Elementary Education letter dated 16.01.2025 para 5 observation; Government Order dated 18.02.2003 Clause 3 (domicile/ordinary resident certificate); State of U.P. not impleaded; Uttarakhand High Court; Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.; decided 01.12.2025; neutral citation 2025:UHC:10704; WPSS/2076/2025 with WPSS/2077, 2080-2084 of 2025; disposed of with directions to District Education Officer.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of, declining to interfere at this stage, with a direction that the District Education Officer concerned shall not be swayed solely by the observation made in para 5 of the letter dated 16.01.2025 issued by Director, Elementary Education, and shall examine whether the petitioner claimed that he or his parents are residing permanently in Uttar Pradesh while applying for the certificate in U.P.

SL.
No.

Date

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

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPSS/2076/2025
With
WPSS/2077/2025
WPSS/2080/2025
WPSS/2081/2025
WPSS/2082/2025
WPSS/2083/2025
WPSS/2084/2025
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate with Mr.
Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State.

2.
Since common questions of law and fact
are involved in these petitions, therefore they
are heard together and are being decided by a
common judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 2076 of 2025
(SS) alone are being discussed and considered.

3.
Petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher in Government Primary School District
Udham Singh Nagar, in the year 2024. A notice
is issued to him on 04.11.2025, by District

Education Officer, asking him to show-cause as

to
how
he
has
obtained
permanent

resident/domicile certificate from State of

Uttarakhand and State of U.P at the same time

and has pursued D.El.Ed course from an

institute situate in State of U.P. based on a
domicile certificate of State of U.P.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner su the authorities have predetermined th	bmits e issue	that as
is apparent from the observation	made	by
Director, Elementary Education, in	his le	tter
dated 16.01.2025, addressed to	Dist	rict
Education Officer, Udham Singh Naga	r.
5. Learned State Counsel is	right	in
submitting that writ petition is pre	mature,	as
only a notice has been issued to	petitio	ner,
asking him to put forth his version.
6. Learned State Counsel further su	bmits	that
Government Order dated 18.02.2003,	issued	by
Secretary, General Administration, D of Government of U.P. (enclosed as A	epartm nnexur	ent e-8
to the writ petition), dea	ls w	ith
domicile/ordinary residents and it p	rovides	in
Clause 3 that if a person or his p	arents	are
permanent residents of a Distric	t or	are
ordinarily residing in a District for	last th	ree
years, would be eligible for domicil	e/ordin	ary
resident certificate.
7. He submits that petitioner	has	not
impleaded State of U.P. as party w	hich al	one
can throw light on the subject and te	ll whet	her
there is any other Government Order	govern	ing
the field or whether the G.O. dated 1	8.02.2	003
was superseded by some other G	overnm	ent
Order issued later. 8. Learned State Counsel sub	mits	that

4.
Learned counsel for petitioner su
the authorities have predetermined th

bmits
e issue

that
as

is apparent from the observation

made

Director, Elementary Education, in

his le

tter

dated
16.01.2025,
addressed
to

Dist

rict

Education Officer, Udham Singh Naga

5.
Learned
State
Counsel
is

right

submitting that writ petition is pre

mature,

only a notice has been issued to

petitio

ner,

asking him to put forth his version.

6.
Learned State Counsel further su

bmits

that

Government Order dated 18.02.2003,

issued

Secretary, General Administration, D
of Government of U.P. (enclosed as A

epartm
nnexur

ent
e-8

to
the
writ
petition),
dea

ls
w

ith

domicile/ordinary residents and it p

rovides

Clause 3 that if a person or his p

arents

are

permanent residents of a Distric

t or

are

ordinarily residing in a District for

last th

ree

years, would be eligible for domicil

e/ordin

ary

resident certificate.

7.
He submits that petitioner

has

not

impleaded State of U.P. as party w

hich al

one

can throw light on the subject and te

ll whet

her

there is any other Government Order

govern

ing

the field or whether the G.O. dated 1

8.02.2

003

was superseded by some other G

overnm

ent

Order issued later.
8.
Learned State Counsel sub

mits

that

Renu Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh Alias Dumpi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Alaknanda Ganga River Rafting Samiti Vs Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board

Birendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pooja Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Girish Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Naveen Chandra Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand