HARISH CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Before venturing into the merits of the matter, the law which would be governing the field, over the issue which has been raised by in the instant writ petition the petitioner is required to be considered, under the provisions contained under Uttaranchal School Education Act of 2006, and particularly in its Sec. 41 it provided for a provision for "ad hoc appointment" of part time teachers/acting PTA teachers by the Committee Of Management. By virtue of amendment, which was carried by way of substitution by Uttarakhand School Amendment Act of 2016 with effect from 30/11/2016, the cut off period as provided therein for grant of ad hoc status under the un-amended provisions, it was 5/9/2003. Later on, the said provisions as a consequence of the amendment, was made effective with effect from 18/10/2011, which could be granted by the Management Committee, as against the post which are created, as per the Rules prevailing at the corresponding time, when the ad hoc status was being considered to be granted to a candidate under Sec. 41 of the Act of 2006.

(3.) Few facts, which are necessarily required to be considered are that the institution of respondent no. 5, is an aided institution, which is managed by the elected committee of management, as per the provisions of Uttaranchal School Education Act and Regulations framed thereunder it. The institution of respondent no. 5 was initially running its classes up to the Junior High School, till it was upgraded to High School in 1970 and later on upgraded to Intermediate in 1980. The petitioner submits that the institution was accorded with an additional recognition to subject of 'commerce', while exercising its powers under the then prevailing law under Sec. 7A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act of 1921, which was granted on 22/2/1986. With the recognition of the Commerce, as one of the subject in the institution of respondent no. 5, petitioner who was having all the requisite qualification, was considered and appointed in December 2002, after undergoing the selection process as claimed by him and contends that he works in the said capacity till date.