Chandan Singh Jina And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The present application is filed seeking leave to prefer an appeal. The applicants-appellants herein are employees working in the cadre of Instructors. It is their case that treating the respondent-writ petitioner as a Group Instructor would result in the applicants-appellants being deprived of their opportunity to be promoted to the said post. While it is, no doubt, true that the applicants have also filed delay Condonation Application No. 9685 of 2017 to condone the delay of 96 days in preferring the Special Appeal, the question of delay would only arise if a party to the writ proceedings had failed to prefer an appeal, against the order passed in the writ petition, within the stipulated time. As noted hereinabove the applicants, who seek leave to appeal, were not parties to the writ petition.

We are satisfied, therefore, that the applicants-appellants are persons aggrieved, entitled to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The application seeking leave to appeal is allowed and, since the question of delay is wholly immaterial, Delay Condonation Application No. 9685 of 2017 is closed.

Heard Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the appellants-applicants, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is being disposed of.

The respondent-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 419 of 2017 wherein they sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.12.2016 issued by the second respondent; and for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere or create any obstruction in the functioning of the respondent-writ petitioner as Group Instructor/Principal I.T.I. Maldhanchaur, Ramnagar, Nainital district.

The respondent-writ petitioner was regularized on 22.08.2003. He claims to have been promoted as a Group Instructor on 23.08.2003. Complaining that he was reverted to the post of Instructor, from the post of Group Instructor, by proceedings dated 22.12.2016, he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and, on the very day on which the writ petition first came up for admission, the learned Single Judge passed the order under appeal dated 21.03.2017 holding that the respondent-writ petitioner was not heard before the impugned order dated 22.11.2016 was passed; it had severe civil consequences; and he ought to have been heard before the impugned order dated 22.12.2016 was passed. The impugned order was quashed reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed with the matter.

While the order under appeal dated 21.03.2017 does appear to show that the impugned order was set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants-appellants (employees working in the cadre of Instructor), would submit that, while the proceedings of regularization dated 22.08.2003, no doubt, refer to the designation of the respondent-writ petitioner as a Group Instructor, an errata was issued thereto, within ten days thereafter on 30.08.2003, making it clear that the word "Group Instructor" should be read as "Instructor", and, since the respondent-writ petitioner was never promoted as Group Instructor in the first instance, the question of his reversion does not arise.

On the other hand Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would submit that, in terms of the order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the respondent-writ petitioner's services were regularized as a Group Instructor, and not merely as an Instructor; and that the order under appeal does not suffer from any error.

The impugned proceedings dated 22.12.2016 itself refers to the errata dated 30.08.2003 whereby it was clarified that the word "Group Instructor" should be read as "Instructor". While we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the rival contentions regarding whether or not the respondent-writ petitioner was regularized as a Group Instructor / Instructor, the fact remains that the writ petition was disposed of on the very day on which it was listed for admission, even without notice being issued to the respondents, and without giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The review petition filed by the applicants-appellants herein was dismissed on the ground that they should have filed an application to implead themselves before the writ petition was disposed of. It was impossible for the applicants-appellants herein to file an impleadment application before the writ petition was disposed of, since the writ petition was disposed of on the very same day it was listed for admission.

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under appeal and restore the writ petition to file. The applicants-appellants herein shall stand impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition. It is open to the respondents in the writ petition to file their counter affidavits within three weeks from today. It is open to Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, to request the learned Single Judge to take up the writ petition for admission/hearing any day after three weeks from today.

With the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal is disposed of. No costs.