STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. KESHAVANAND JHALDIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these Appeals involve common questions of law and facts, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment.

(2.) APPELLANTS are the State of Uttarakhand as well as the private individuals. The writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the advertisement dated 1st February 2014 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) issued by the Director, Elementary Education, Uttarakhand for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher in various Govt. Primary Schools of the State, as the same is contrary to the Service Rules. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hold the selection for the post of Assistant Teacher in various Govt. Primary Schools of the State in terms of the provisions of Uttarakhand Govt. Primary Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 2012 as amended in 2013. (iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the clause in the impugned advertisement so far as the same provides horizontal reservation in favor of skilled sports persons, Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari and the dependants of Rajya Andolankari as the same being in contravention of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Court. (iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

(3.) AS per the Advertisement in question, applications were invited for selection for appointment of teachers in Elementary Schools. Under the impugned advertisement, it is mentioned that the list of selected candidates was to be prepared in descending order. In the Advertisement, it was stated that the list would be prepared not only as per the marks obtained in B.TC. or D.El.Ed or T.E.T., but also the quality points for the marks obtained by the candidates in High School, Intermediate and Graduation. Still further, the advertisement provides that selection would be made on year -wise basis, that is to say the person, who has obtained B.Ed. degree in earlier year will be treated as senior to the one in the list, who has obtained the same in the later year. Reservation has also been provided for sportspersons and Rajya Andolankari. As regards reservation for sportspersons is concerned, the learned Single Judge took note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013 and found it to be bad. Insofar as reservation for the Uttarakkhand Rajya Andolankari is concerned, the learned Single Judge again found that there is no justification in making reservation for them. Passing on to the year -wise seniority to B.Ed. candidates, it was found to be bereft of any logic and it was also found to diminish the criteria of merit. It was found that the present concession, which was being made for the B.Ed. qualified candidates giving priority to those, who have done B.Ed. earlier, is totally wrong and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Also the criteria given in the advertisement for giving marks on the basis of the High School, Intermediate and Graduation was also found de hors the Rules. On the basis of said discussion, appellant / State Government was directed to hold examination in accordance with the Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and, on the basis of that, the writ petition was allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the same that the Appeals, four in number, are before us.