JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these special appeals, therefore they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of SPA No.300 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed here.

2. The present special appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10-09-2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 58 (S/S) of 2025 titled as "Virendra Singh Negi Versus State of Uttarakhand and others”.

3. The appellant has filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, for the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 30-12-2024 (copy Annexure No. 9 to the Writ Petition) with all consequential disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner pursuant to charge sheet dated 30-12-2024.”

4. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant obtained a Bachelor of Education degree, styled as Shikshalankar, from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. In the year 2004, an advertisement was issued by the District Education Officer, Uttarkashi, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools. The essential qualification prescribed therein was a Bachelor’s degree along with B.Ed. The application of the appellant was initially rejected; however, pursuant to orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1305 of 2004, his application was entertained and he was deputed for Special B.T.C. Training. Thereafter, pursuant to further orders passed in Writ Petition No.3016 of 2006 (SS), the appellant was provisionally appointed as Assistant Teacher on 31.07.2006, subject to verification of original certificates and mark sheets.

5. After rendering service for nearly two decades and being promoted as Head Master, the appellant was served with a charge sheet by the District Education Officer (Elementary), Uttarkashi. The sole allegation therein was that his B.Ed. degree from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, was invalid since the said institution was neither recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) nor by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

6. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the charge sheet. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding it to be premature, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28. The learned Single Judge held that issuance of a charge sheet does not affect the rights of an employee, as no civil consequence ensues therefrom, and the validity of the degree could only be examined in the disciplinary enquiry.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends before us that the charge sheet could not have been issued after the appellant had rendered more than 20 years of blemish-free service. It is submitted that the respondents themselves had verified the appellant’s degree both at the time of his initial appointment as Assistant Teacher and at the time of his promotion as Head Master. It is further urged that in earlier writ proceedings, the respondents had filed a counter affidavit wherein they accepted the validity of the degree in question. In such circumstances, the respondents are estopped from questioning the genuineness of the appellant’s qualification at this belated stage. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagar Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3904 of 2013, decided on 14.07.2017), wherein it was held that the service of an employee cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the order of the learned Single Judge. He