Shanta Devi vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Rajiv Sharma. A.C.J.

Present Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 1574

(S/S) of 2015, Shanta Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and others, as also judgment and order dated 07.05.2018, passed in Review Application no. 613 of

2018, whereby the writ petition as well as the review application both filed by the writ petitioner (appellant herein) were dismissed.

2) The writ petitioner preferred writ petition no. 1574 (S/S) of 2015, seeking following reliefs, among others: 2

i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the illegal service termination order dated 13.07.2015.

ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 09.10.2013.

th

iii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13 July, 2015.

iv) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner with all consequential

service benefits.

3) Factual matrix of the case is that initially the post of Training Instructor-Shorthand (Hindi) (Prashikshan Mitra) in the Govt. Industrial Training

Institute fell vacant and, as an ad hoc arrangement, applications were invited to fill up the said post, till the regular selection is made. The petitioner as

well as respondent no. 5 submitted their respective applications. The petitioner got selected on the post of Prashikshan Mitra in Govt. Industrial

Training Institute, Badkot, District Uttarkashi, on ad hoc basis, till the regular appointment is made. On a complaint made by Uday Singh Rana

(respondent no. 5 herein), the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 18.07.2002. Though the appointment of the petitioner was a

tenure appointment and the petitioner was to continue upto 31.07.2002, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition no. 1019 (S/B) of 2002, Smt. Shanta Devi

vs State of Uttaranchal and another. The Division 3 Bench of this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated

07.08.2002. However, it was observed that being the tenure appointment, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. But the petitioner succeeded to

continue on the post of Prashikshan Mitra.

4) The Additional Director, Government of Uttaranchal issued a letter dated 18.05.2004 to the Director, Training and Employment, Uttaranchal

directing him to extend the tenure of Prashikshan Mitra in the Govt. Industrial Training Institutes of the State till regular appointment on the post of

regular Instructor is made. It has been specifically mentioned in the said letter that this arrangement will automatically come to an end as soon as the

regular appointment of the Instructors is made. Taking advantage of the order dated 18.05.2004, the petitioner was permitted to continue as

Prashikshan Mitra. Respondent no. 5 again made a complaint that the petitioner has been permitted to continue on the post of Prashikshan Mitra as

her husband is working as a Clerk in the same Govt. Industrial Training Institute. On the complaint made by respondent no. 5, an enquiry was

conducted and Additional District Magistrate, Uttarkashi was appointed Enquiry Officer, who submitted a detailed enquiry report dated 27.09.2013

mentioning therein that the petitioner succeeded to obtain an appointment on the basis of forged domicile certificate, which was subsequently

cancelled. It is also observed that earlier the High 4 Court has passed the order disposing of the writ petition, despite that the petitioner was permitted

to continue in service. However, the writ petition was dismissed and no relief was granted to the petitioner and it was observed by the Court that

nothing can be done in the matter as appointment on the post of Prashikshan Mitra was tenure appointment and was only for the period till regularly

selected candidate joins the post. The said post is reported to have been filled by a regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the petitioner was

also found against the rules and the Government Orders.

5) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State & learned counsel for respondent no. 5

and perused the impugned judgment & order, as also the record of the writ petition.

6) The learned Single Judge has considered and dealt with each and every aspect of the matter minutely and has recorded a categorical finding that

the post on which the petitioner (appellant herein) was working has been filled by regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the petitioner on

the post of Prashikshan Mitra was tenure appointment subject to the condition that the same was only for the period till regularly selected candidate

joins the post and a regularly selected candidate has already joined the post. Thus, we find no perversity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the

learned Single Judge. No interference is, therefore, called 5 for in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7) The Special Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.