COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the present case inter alia are that petitioner institution was permitted vide order dated 11.11.2011 to initiate recruitment process to fill up three vacant posts of Class IV; posts were advertised on 20.11.2011; interview was held on 20.12.2011; select list, as prepared by the Selection Committee, was sent for approval on 20.12.2011 to the District Education Officer (now Chief Education Officer); when nothing was heard, petitioners were compelled to file Writ Petition No. 2690 of 2013 (MS) before this Court; this Court, vide order dated 10.04.2014, was pleased to dispose of Writ Petition No. 2690 of 2013 (MS) with a direction to respondent No. 3 to take appropriate decision afresh on the representation of the petitioners dated 20.12.2011 seeking approval of the select list sent by the Selection Committee; it has further been held in the judgment dated 10.04.2014 that since selection process was initiated prior to the Government Order dated 14.12.2011 imposing ban on the recruitment of Class IV posts, therefore, Government Order dated 14.12.2011 shall have no application in the present case; Chief Education Officer, Haridwar/respondent No. 3 herein, vide impugned order (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), was pleased to reject the select list prepared and sent by the Selection Committee on the ground that the Selection Committee was not constituted as per sub Section (4) of Section 37 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 and no prior approval was sought and obtained for holding the interview; it was further observed in the impugned order that no material was placed before the Chief Education Officer to the effect that candidates were informed by registered post about the date of the interview; another ground for rejection was that Government has imposed ban on the recruitment of Class IV posts vide G.O. dated 14.12.2011, thus no appointment. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have once again approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents, and have carefully perused the records. Section 37 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 reads as under:

(3.) IN the present case, Selection Committee was consisted of Principal/Head of the institution as well as Om Singh, lecturer in the institution and Shri Mainpal Singh, teacher LT Grade, working in the institution. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that there is another lecturer, who is senior to Shri Mainpal Singh, an LT Grade teacher. Mr. Parikshit Saini, however, submits that since senior to Shri Mainpal Singh does not belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes category, therefore, Shri Mainpal Singh, who belongs to OBC category, was made member of the Selection Committee in view of the fact that one of the members should be of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes category.