Jageshwar Prasad Kashyap vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher (Science) in a Government school. He completed the age of superannuation in the month of April, 2019

and was retired on 30.042019. Petitioner is aggrieved by denial of benefit of Government policy, which provides that teachers serving in Government

schools, who complete age of superannuation during mid academic-session, would be given extension of service till the end of academic-session i.e.

31st March. Petitioner has relied upon three Government Orders dated 20.09.2011, 08.04.2011 and 01.06.2012 in support of his contention that he is

entitled to extension of service.

Perusal of the above Government Orders indicates that a teacher claiming extension of service has to apply for such extension before the end of

preceding academic session i.e. 31st March of that calendar year. Admittedly, petitioner had applied for extension on 01.10.2018. The other conditions

of eligibility are that (i) his work and conduct should have been above board during his service career and there would be no adverse material against

him; (ii) he should be mentally and physically healthy; and (iii) he should be regularly teaching a subject in the school. Petitioner fulfils all the conditions

of eligibility, thus he had a right to be considered for extension of service.

A counter affidavit has been filed by Chief Education Officer, Pauri Garhwal. The defence taken for not granting extension to the petitioner is that

extension cannot be claimed as a matter of right and there are as many as four Lecturers in Science group serving in the concerned college where

petitioner was serving, therefore, there is no need to engage the petitioner by granting him extension of service.

The defence taken by respondent for not granting extension to the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. A careful perusal of the

Government Orders reveals that every teacher, who fulfills the conditions of eligibility specified therein, has a right to be considered for extension of

service and grant of extension is not dependent upon number of teachers available to teach in the concerned college.

Even otherwise also, as per the counter affidavit there are four Lecturers in Science group. Lecturers are meant to teach students of Intermediate

classes and Science group subject in Intermediate classes includes Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics subjects. Thus, the four Lecturers of

Science group, serving in the institution would cater to the needs of Intermediate class alone. Assistant Teachers on the other hand teach students of

6th standard to 10th standard. It is nowhere mentioned in the counter affidavit that an Assistant Teacher â€" L.T. Grade (Science) is also available in

the concerned institution.

In the counter affidavit, respondent has admitted that one Girish Chandra Santoshi, who was serving in the same institution was given extension of

service till end of next academic session. The explanation offered for not granting similar treatement to the petitioner is without any substance. In such

view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondents were not justified in ignoring petitioner’s claim for extension of

service in terms of Government policy/orders.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 2 â€" Director, Secondary Education, Dehradun is directed to re-consider petitioner’s

claim for extension of service in the light of observations made above and pass appropriate speaking order, within three weeks from the date of

production of certified copy of this order.