KUNDAN LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. Since both the appeals are aris ing but of the judgment and order dated 09-05-2006 passed by the learned Sin gle Judge of this Court and involve, the common question of fact and law, there fore, the appeals are being decided by the common judgment.

(2.) THESE special appeals under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Huh Court Rules have been filed against the judgment and order dated 09-05-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 22 of 2006 (S/ S), Kundan Lal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others and Civil Writ Petition No. 35 of 2006 (S/s), Km. Devki Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the petitions.

(3.) IN both the writ petitions coun ter affidavit has been filed by the Addi tional District Education Officer (Basic), Bageshwar in which it has been stated that the appointment given to the peti tioners (appellants) was temporary ap pointment in view of the interim order passed by this court in the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners. It was fur ther pleaded that the writ petitioners (ap pellants) had obtained the C. R Ed, after the year 1997 from Sri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati, Maharashtra and they were not eligible to the B. T. C. Training Course. It was further pleaded that the State of U. P. is sued a G. O. dated 23-05-1995 by which the recognition of C. P. Ed, from Sri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati, Maharashtra was cancelled. It was further pleaded that the State of Uttaranchal also issued a G. O. on 13-11-2001 wherein it had been provided that only regular candidates would be treated qualified with the aforesaid C. R Ed. , provided they had obtained the said certificate till 1997. It was further pleaded that the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 47 of 2005, Usha Rawat and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, decided on 29-07-2005 2005 (2) U. D. , 141. held that the writ petitioners who had obtained cer tificate of C. R Ed, from Sri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati, Maharashtra after 1997 had no legal right to continue in the service. IN that Special appeal the writ petitioners had also obtained the certificate of C. R Ed, from Sri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati, Maharashtra after 1997, as such, their services were rightly dispensed with.