KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.