STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. ARCHANA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal has been preferred by the State/appellants, challenging the judgment and order dtd. 17/8/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2238 of 2016, Archana Rani Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dtd. 27/7/2016, whereby the order of appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner was kept under suspension and a further mandamus had been issued to the respondents/appellants herein to issue letter of appointment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants/State submits that learned Single Judge passed the judgment under challenge without considering the entire factual aspects of the case in correct perspective since the petitioner was already appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Dharpangu, Dharchula District Pithoragarh on 1/10/2014 and she gave her joining on 14/10/2014 and thereafter she remained unauthorisedly absent from her duties since 16/11/2015 and without any prior information, she submitted her resignation on 22/1/2016 which was rejected by the Deputy Education Officer on 16/11/2016.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this is a very vital issue because the respondent/writ petition has applied pursuant to a fresh advertisement issued on 17/2/2016 and though she was permitted to participate in that selection process and offered appointment on 21/7/2016 but subsequently the same was kept under suspension on 27/7/2016 since she was not eligible to apply pursuant to clause 7(cha) of the advertisement which provides that those who are already appointed and are working on the post of Assistant Teacher, are not eligible to apply afresh pursuant to the fresh advertisement.