HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL Special Appeal No.1061 of 2017 With Delay Condonation Application (CLMA/ 16548/ 2017)

22 July, 2025 State of Uttarakhand and Others --Appellants Versus Parmanand Yadav --Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

Presence:-

Mr. Susheel Kumar Vashishtha, learned Standing Counsel for the State/appellants.

Mr. Mohd. Shaify, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Aditya Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the respondent.

------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

Hon’ble Manoj Kum ar Tiw ari, J.

Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

(Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiw ari, J.)

JUDGMENT

There is delay of 200 days in filing this special appeal.

2. Objection to the delay condonation application has not been filed by the respondent. For the reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing this special appeal is condoned.

3. State has filed this intra-court appeal challenging judgment dated 01.05.2017 rendered by learned Single Judge in WPSS No.774 of 2017. By the said order, writ petition filed by respondent challenging termination order dated 02.06.2016 was allowed and authorities of education department were directed to reinstate respondent (writ-petitioner) with all consequential benefits, within six weeks.

4. The judgment passed by learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal is reproduced below:-

“Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No.618 of 2016 and analogous matters on 28.03.2017. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment cited hereinabove. The impugned termination order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits within a period of six weeks from today.

However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.”

5. Learned State Counsel submits that writ petition filed by respondent was decided in terms of judgment dated 28.03.2017 rendered in WPSS No.618 of 2016. He submits that by a common judgment dated 28.03.2017, as many as eight writ petitions filed by teachers, whose service was terminated on the ground that they secured appointment based on forged educational certificates, were decided in which leading case was WPSS No.1152 of 2016; out of these eight writ petitions, WPSS No.618 of 2016 was also decided by the common judgment dated 28.03.2017. He further submits that the judgment as rendered in WPSS No.1152 of 2016, was set aside by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2019 rendered in SPA No.384 of 2017 and SPA No.385 of 2017. Operative portion of the judgment rendered by Division Bench in SPA No.384 of 2017 and SPA No.385 of 2017 is extracted below:-

“12. We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set-aside the order under appeal, and to restore the writ petitions to file. The learned Single Judge shall examine whether failure, to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee, has caused them prejudice, and whether it would result in the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, and the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee, being set-aside.”

6. Learned State Counsel thus submits that since Division Bench of this Court has set aside the judgment rendered in WPSS No.618 of 2016, therefore, impugned order dated 01.05.2017, which relies on the aforesaid judgment, also deserves to be set aside. He further submits that respondent was not qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Government Primary School) as he was not having Basic Teachers Course (in short “BTC”) Certificate and he secured appointment based on forged BTC Certificate. He submits that the allegation that respondent was not BTC qualified was confirmed when his certificate was sent for verification