IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 1206 of 2025

Shyam Singh Panwar … Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 39 of 2025 Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 55 of 2025 Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 58 of 2025 Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 59 of 2025 Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 61 of 2025 Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 64 of 2025 Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 1203 of 2025 Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 1204 of 2025 Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 1209 of 2025 Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 1210 of 2025 Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 1211 of 2025

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional CSC, with Mr. Narayan Dutt,

Standing Counsel, for the State.

10.9.2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Since common questions of fact and law

are involved in these writ petitions, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1206 of 2025 alone are being

considered and discussed here.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner

has sought 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.”

3. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School in the month of April, 2005 and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Teacher in a Government Junior High School on 21.5.2021. According to petitioner, he has rendered nearly 20 years of service and the chargesheet, which has been issued against him, is illegal and unsustainable as the qualification possessed by the petitioner cannot be questioned after 20 years.

4. Chargesheet issued against the petitioner by the District Education Officer (Elementary), Uttarkashi is on record as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The sole allegation in the chargesheet is that petitioner secured appointment as Assistant Teacher based on B.Ed. degree awarded by Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, however the said institute is not included in the list of recognized institutions by UGC.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not appointed based on B.Ed. qualification and he was appointed on the strength of Special BTC Training undergone by the petitioner.

6. Learned State Counsel, however, contends that the institute, which issued B.Ed. degree to the petitioner is not recognized by University Grants Commission, therefore it is not competent to award any degree. He further submits that Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur is not recognized by NCTE, which also proves that the B.Ed. degree possessed by the petitioner is not valid for appointment as teacher. Learned State Counsel further submits that Special BTC Training was imparted to valid B.Ed. qualification holders in order to prepare them for employment as teacher in basic/primary schools and candidates, who obtained B.Ed. degree from Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, were not permitted to participate in Special BTC Training, as is admitted in para 6 of the writ petition and petitioner was given admission in Special BTC Training course pursuant to order dated 21.2.2004, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 97/2004. Thus learned State Counsel submits that the B.Ed. degree possessed by the petitioner was from a fake institute, not recognized by UGC or NCTE. Thus petitioner lacks the basic qualification needed for appointment as teacher.

7. Learned State Counsel further submits that the writ petition is pre-mature and ill-advised, as no punishment is inflicted upon the petitioner and he has simply been asked to give reply to the chargesheet. He submits that petit