STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS vs JHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is delay of 136 days in filing SPA No. 652 of 2017; delay of 127 days in filing SPA No. 618 of

2017; delay of 127 days in filing SPA No. 613 of 2017; delay of 110 days in filing SPA No. 616 of 2017; delay of 110 days in filing SPA No. 615 of

2017; delay of 112 days in filing SPA No. 622 of 2017; delay of 129 days in filing SPA No. 620 of 2017; and delay of 112 days in filing SPA No. 619

of 2017. In the circumstances, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and for reasons disclosed in the Delay Condonation Applications, having

considered the same, the delay caused in filing all these appeals will stand condoned. The Delay Condonation Applications will stand allowed.Â

Thereafter, we took up all these appeals for hearing with the consensus of the parties.    Â

We heard Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Brief Holder on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand/appellants and learned counsel for the writ petitioners in

each of these cases.Â

We take Special Appeal No. 652 of 2017, which arises from the judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 157 of 2016, as the leading case.Â

The reliefs sought in the said writ petition are as follows:

“i). declare non allotment of district of their first choice/home district to the petitioners despite their high ranking in the select list, as arbitrary and

illegal.

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision taken by the competent authority on objection of the petitioners,

which was uploaded in the website of the department on 10-12-2015 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition).

iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 3 to allot home districts/districts of their first choice to the

petitioners in the light of their superior ranking in the select list.â€​

Counter affidavits were filed and pleadings were exchanged.Â

We extract the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition (S/S) 157 of 2016 as follows:

 “Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners.

 Mr. Vikas Pandey, Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioners participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher.

According to the advertisement, the selection and allocation of districts were to be made on the basis of over all merit of the candidates. The petitioner

no.1 gave option for District Haridwar and petitioner no.2 gave option for Dehradun. However, the respondents without taking into consideration the

merit determined at the time of selection have allocated District Alomora to petitioner no.1 and District Tehri Garhwal to petitioner no.2.

 It has come on record that the persons who were lower in the merit vis-à -vis petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have been allocated stations of their choice.

The respondents should have considered the merit at the time of allocating the districts.

 It has also come on record that the principle of reservation was not followed at the time of allocation of districts.Â

 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to allocate the petitioner no.1 to District Haridwar and petitioner no.2 District

Dehradun within a period of six weeks from today.â€​ Â

After having heard the learned Brief Holder on behalf of the appellants and also the learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners, in all these

cases, we are of the view that the impugned judgments in all these cases, which are almost worded same, cannot be sustained. A perusal of the

judgment, as we have extracted, does not reveal that the learned Single Judge has considered the contentions of the appellants, which have been set

up in the counter affidavit. The only case, which is set up is that the Rules of Reservation were not followed and it is further held that it has come

on record that the persons, who were lower in the merit have been allocated stations of their choice, contrary to the condition (7)(x) of the

advertisement dated 01.02.2014.

In our view, the learned Single Judge should have considered the contentions of the appellants and argument of counsel for both sides in totality.Â

In some of these cases, we also notice that the writ petitioners have sought to quash the decision taken on their objections. There is no relief either

granted or denied by the learned Single Judge and yet the relief is granted in the manner, which we have noticed in one of the impugned

judgments.  Â

In such circumstances, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments in all these cases are set aside. We remit the matter back to the

learned Single Judge. The case will stand listed before the learned Single Judge on 14.06.2018 and we request the learned Single Judge to dispose

of all these matters at the earliest. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any view regarding the merits of the contentions of the

parties and we leave it entirely open for the learned Single Judge. Â