MOHAMMAD SALEEM Vs. HER GOVIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application, to amend the prayer, is not opposed by Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, and amendment application No. 16664 of 2019 is therefore ordered.

(2.) The appellant herein sought leave to prefer this appeal, against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 461 of 2018 dated 16.03.2018, on the ground that, in compliance with the aforesaid directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the Additional Director had, by his letter dated 18.02.2019, informed the Director, Elementary Education, Uttarakhand regarding 52 candidates, who were appointed more than a decade earlier as an Assistant Teacher, (Urdu) based on their qualifications of Adeeb, Adeeb-e-Mahir and Adeeb-e-Kamil; the appellant's name is found at serial no. 40 in the list enclosed along with order dated 18.02.2019; the authorities intend taking disciplinary action against all these 52 candidates; since the appellant, one among these 52 Assistant Teachers (Urdu), is a person aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.03.2018, he is entitled to prefer this appeal; and this Court may consider granting him leave to appeal. As we are satisfied that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.03.2018 forms the basis for the action being taken by the Government, we see no reason to deny the appellant leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.03.2018 and 2.10.2019. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted; and the application seeking leave is disposed of accordingly.

(3.) The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.03.2018 is questioned by the appellant herein contending that, in a dispute wholly unrelated to the appointment of these 52 individuals, equivalence of their educational qualities, to those which are prescribed, is now sought to be reopened in some cases nearly 25 years after they were appointed as Assistant Teachers (Urdu); disciplinary proceedings are now sought to be initiated against them; enquiry in a writ petition should, ordinarily, be confined only to the subject matter of the lis before the Court; writ proceedings cannot be so expanded as to include matters wholly unconnected with the lis; the learned Single Judge ought not have undertaken the exercise of causing a roving inquiry into all these appointments made several years ago; this Court would not entertain service disputes even while exercising its public interest litigation jurisdiction; and, though the learned Single Judge was not deciding a public interest litigation writ petition, yet he had widened the scope of enquiry in the writ petition before him, to include matters wholly unconnected with the lis before him.