Kamlesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Hon. Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that after following the due process, he was offered appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Kailashpuri, Sitarganj on 16.10.2009. The appointment letter has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the petition. Petitioner was asked to join on the said post by 31.10.2009. It was further stated in the appointment letter that if he fails to do so, then his appointment would be deemed to be cancelled automatically. On 30.10.2009, petitioner moved an application to the District Education Officer, U.S. Nagar, seeking extension to join his duties on account of his ill health. No decision upon that application was taken and the same kept on pending for a long time. Petitioner has moved repeated applications for extension of time to give joining on the post on the same ground of his illness.

The District Education Officer, instead of taking any decision upon any application moved by petitioner, wrote a letter to Director, School Education, Dehradun, and sought guidelines on the issue. One such letter was written on 26.10.2010, i.e. almost after lapse of one year of receiving application of petitioner, but no speaking directions or guidelines were issued by the concerned Director and the Court has been apprised that the issue was left to be decided by District Education Officer at his own discretion and prudence, as he himself was the appointing authority of petitioner.

Even thereafter, when no decision was taken on the issue, the petitioner was constrained to move to this Court by way of filing a petition bearing W.P.(S/S) No.125 of 2011, wherein the directions were issued by this Court on 18.2.2011 to District Education Officer to take a final decision in the matter within three weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this Court.

Petitioner thereafter approached the District Education Officer within the time stipulated by this Court and moved a further application on 28.2.2011, requesting him to accord permission for joining on the said post. At this time too, no decision was taken by District Education Officer, U.S. Nagar on the petitioner''s application. So, the petitioner was further constrained to file a contempt petition bearing no.109 of 2011 against Sri Ramesh Chandra Arya, District Education Officer, U.S. Nagar as well as Sri Chandra Singh Gwal, Director, School Education. At this stage, the Court feels that the Director Education was not the necessary party in the contempt petition, inasmuch as, he had already manifested his view that in the matter, in controversy, Sri Ramesh Chandra Arya, District Education Officer, was the competent officer to take any decision.

However, vide order dated 11.5.2011, the Court admitted the petition and issued notice to the respondents asking their response. The Court further extended an opportunity to District Education Officer to decide the representation of the petitioner before submitting his response in the court.

When the copy of order, passed by this Court on 11.5.2011, was served upon the District Education Officer, he decided the representation of petitioner whereby he rejected the same on the ground that he did not comply with the directions mentioned in the appointment letter dated 16.10.2009.

It has been argued on behalf of petitioner that on account of his illness he could not join his services. He has enclosed a number of medical certificates issued by the competent government doctors narrating his illness from time to time. Further, attention of this Court has been drawn towards a number of candidates, namely, Dheeraj Kumar, Pramod Kumar, Dinesh Singh and Updesh Singh Gahlot, who were appointed vide the same appointment letter on 16.10.2009 and were asked to join their services by 31.10.09, however they were allowed extension of time to join their service and later on, they were permitted to join the same considering their illness.

So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court feels that there is no need at all to call for any counter affidavit of the respondents, as asked by learned brief holder for the State. The matter, prima facie, discloses the quite just grounds in favour of the petitioner and the Court finds it fit to set aside the impugned order passed by the District Education Officer dated 20.6.2011. In view of what has been stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.6.2011 passed by the District Education Officer is hereby quashed. Respondent no.3- District Education Officer, U.S. Nagar is directed to permit the petitioner to join his services in the school wherein he was appointed. If the vacancy in the said school is not available, then the respondent no.3 will be free to accommodate the petitioner in any other nearby school. If the respondent no.3 fails to comply with the directions of this Court this time, then his lapse will be treated as contemptuous by this Court and he would be asked to explain the reasons for non-compliance of the directions of this Court.