VIJAYA RATURI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bunch of five writ petitions almost involving an identical question of law. Hence, for the purposes of brevity the same are being decided together. Writ Petition No. 2936 of 2017 would be treated as to be the leading writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners in the present writ petitions had filed the writ petitions challenging the advertisement, which has been issued in Amar Ujala as back as on 27.09.2017 by the respondent to fill up the post of part time teacher from amongst the general category candidates, which has been issued by the District Project Officer, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Chamoli. A prayer has further been made for quashing the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 passed by respondent no. 4, by virtue of which the contractual appointment of the petitioners was terminated and, lastly it has been prayed for that as a consequence of prayer no. 2 a writ of mandamus may be issued to the respondent to ignore the forcible resignation taken from the petitioners on 16.07.2017, which has been taken as to be the foundation for dispensing their services.

(3.) The brief backdrop of the writ petitions, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that for the purposes of establishment of the Primary Schools under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan the predecessors of the petitioners had gifted their land for establishment of the institution. The conveyance of the land had being as a consequence of a registered gift deed, which was executed by the predecessors of the petitioners on 25.08.2005. Consequently, the school was established and is being running on the said land. The case of the petitioners is that at the time when the predecessors of the petitioners have gifted their land an understanding was arrived at between the land owner Sitab Singh and District Project Officer, District Chamoli, that in pursuance of the gifting of land they would be providing an appointment to one of the heirs of the owner of the land. But this fact of assurance of appointment has not been proved by any document on record, admittedly as per petitioners' case also it was an understanding only, which is not referred in the gift deed.