Disposed

Preeti v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Apr 2026WPSS/616/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the suspension of a 2015 recruitment process for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit). The court, noting the long delay, refused to direct an interview but permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the Chief Education Officer, who was directed to decide within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permission to make representation to the Chief Education Officer, who must decide within eight weeks.

Preeti Vs State of Uttarakhand — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:UHC:2299

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPSS/616/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate, for the petitioner.
			Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate, for the respondent no. 4.
			2. Petitioner responded to an advertisement issued by Management of Inter College, Kunajkhal, District Pauri Garhwal on 6.12.2015. According to petitioner, after preparing list of top seven candidates, no further step was taken, pursuant to said advertisement. It is the case of petitioner that she was placed at serial no. 1 amongst seven candidates, shortlisted for interview for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit), but the selection process was suspended without any rhyme and reason. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought a direction to authorities to complete the selection process.
			3. Learned State Counsel submits that selection process was initiated in 2015, therefore there cannot be a direction to hold interview in a writ petition, filed in the year 2024. He further submits that if petitioner has any grievance, she can make representation to the competent authority, which shall be dealt with as per law.
			4. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make representation to Chief Education Officer concerned. If she makes such

¶3

2026:UHC:2299

¶4

representation within two weeks from
today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as
per law, within eight weeks thereafter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
1.4.2026
Pr
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: 2026.04.02 10:20:10 +05'30'

Preeti v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preeti 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinit Kumar Pathak Vs Managing Director

Manjay Singh Aswal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nakshater Singh Vs Managing Director

Shyama Joshi Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies

Yamuna Datt Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vimlesh Vs State of Uttarakhand