Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
K.M. JOSEPH, ALOK SINGH, JJ.
Rajesh Prasad Dobhal - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 59, 60, 67, 98, 106-112 of 2016, 347, 420 of 2017
Decided on : 09-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anup Kumar Verma, Advocate, Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate, Mr. C.S. Rawat, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
The Government has the power to revamp the education system and to repatriate employees who are on deputation to their parent department.
Headnote:
The Court held that the Government's decision to revamp the education system by redesignating the posts of Coordinators as Block Resource Persons and Cluster Resource Persons and implementing a new selection process was reasonable and justified. The Court found that the appellants, who were selected as Coordinators under the earlier system, had no legal right to continue in those positions and could be repatriated to their parent department. The Court also held that the writ petitioners, who had applied for the new posts pursuant to an advertisement, did not have a legal right to compel the Government to complete the selection process.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were selected as Coordinators under the earlier Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme. The Government later decided to revamp the system and redesignated the posts of Coordinators as Block Resource Persons and Cluster Resource Persons. A new selection process was implemented, and the appellants were not selected. They challenged the Government's decision and the advertisement for the new posts.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Government's decision to revamp the education system was reasonable and justified. The Court also found that the appellants had no legal right to continue in their positions as Coordinators and could be repatriated to their parent department. The Court further held that the writ petitioners did not have a legal right to compel the Government to complete the selection process.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government's decision to revamp the education system was reasonable and justified? 2. Whether the appellants had a legal right to continue in their positions as Coordinators? 3. Whether the writ petitioners had a legal right to compel the Government to complete the selection process?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Government's decision to revamp the education system was reasonable and justified because it was aimed at improving the quality of elementary education. The Court noted that the earlier system had not been effective in achieving this goal. 2. The Court held that the appellants did not have a legal right to continue in their positions as Coordinators because they were on deputation and their lien was in their parent department. The Court also noted that the Government had the power to repatriate them to their parent department. 3. The Court held that the writ petitioners did not have a legal right to compel the Government to complete the selection process because they had no legal right to the posts in question.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants and the writ petitioners.
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
We are inclined to grant leave in SPA No. 347 of 2017 and SPA No. 420 of 2017. Accordingly, the applications for leave to appeal will stand allowed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties in Special Appeal No. 420 of 2017 on the delay condonation application. In the circumstances, the delay will stand condoned. The delay condonation application will stand allowed.
3. All these appeals being connected, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment.
4. SPA No. 98 of 2016, SPA No. 106 of 2016, SPA No. 108 of 2016, SPA No. 109 of 2016, SPA No. 110 of 2016, SPA No. 107 of 2016, SPA No. 111 of 2016 and SPA No. 112 of 2016 are all filed by the writ petitioners. These appeals have been lodged against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions filed by the appellants. For the sake of brevity, we take SPA No. 106 of 2016 as the leading case, which is filed against the judgment passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1613 of 2014. Therein, the prayers sought are as follows:
“I-Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and to quash the impugned notification dated 27.6.2014 issued by Additional Director S.C.E.R.T Uttarakhand i.e. respondent no. 4, so far as it relates to petitioner, as the petitioner is appointed against the substantive posts and the respondent authorities by its own order absorbed him and have given him posting in the permanent capacity.
II. Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to not to interfere in the peace functioning of petitioner on the post of Assistant Block Resource Centre Coordinator and pay him salary and other allowances, as admissible to him, month by month basis.”
There is no dispute that the prayers in other writ petitions are similar.
5. SPA No. 59 of 2016, SPA No. 60 of 2016 and SPA No. 67 of 2016 are filed by the persons, who are not the writ petitioners but who claim to be affected by the common judgment. The remaining two appeals being SPA No. 347 of 2017 and SPA No. 420 of 2017 are filed against the judgment rendered by another learned Single Judge. We shall refer to the said judgment later on.
6. In order to appreciate the facts, it is necessary to give a background of the case. Before the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, in the Districts situated in the present State i.e. Haridwar, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarkashi, Pithoragarh, Champawat and Bageshwar, the Primary Education Scheme No. III was running under the scheme within a District at each Block level, 01 post of Block Coordinator, 02 posts of Assistant Block Coordinator and at each Naya Panchayat level a Naya Panchayat Coordinator existed (see para 3(B) of the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition (S/S) 1204 of 2014). A separate society was created on 17.02.2001 as “Uttaranchal Sabhi Ke Liya Siksha Parishad” (see para 3(C) of the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition (S/S) 1204 of 2014). In the year 2002, the Government of India sanctioned the “Serva Shiksha Abhiyan” project for the rest of seven Districts of Uttarakhand i.e. Dehradun, Chamoli, Pauri, Rudraprayag, Nainital, Udham Singh Nagar and Almora. Certain numbers of posts were sanctioned. By the order dated 19.03.2003, the Governor was pleased to sanction these posts till 31.03.2010 with a condition. The posts could be cancelled earlier, without any prior notice (see para 3(E) of the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition (S/S) 1204 of 2014). The posts, according to the Government, were actually ex-cadre posts, which were sanctioned during the period of the said project. For these posts, the teachers of the Education Department, who were having the same pay-scale were to be posted and the lien of these post holders was to remain in the substantive post of the Education Department. The next order to notice is the order d
