SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1012043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
VIRENDRA SINGH NEGI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
SPA 300 / 2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No.300 of 2025

Virendra Singh Negi …… Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents

&

Special Appeal No.301 of 2025

Birendra Singh …… Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents

&

Special Appeal No.302 of 2025

Lokendra Prasad …… Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents

&

Special Appeal No.303 of 2025

Ram Singh Panwar …… Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents

&

Special Appeal No.304 of 2025

Ranbeer Singh Panwar …… Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents

&

Special Appeal No.305 of 2025

Gajendra Pal Singh …… Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents &

Special Appeal No.306 of 2025 Upendra Singh …… Appellant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents &

Special Appeal No.307 of 2025 Samarveer Singh Bisht …… Appellant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents &

Special Appeal No.308 of 2025 Jagdamba Prasad Nautiyal …… Appellant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents &

Special Appeal No.309 of 2025 Shyam Singh Panwar …… Appellant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents &

Special Appeal No.310 of 2025 Jai Prakash Vyas …… Appellant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents Presence:

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Mr. P.P. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. B.S. Parihar and Mr. S.S. Chaudhari, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State.

Judgment reserved on: 26.09.2025 Judgment delivered on: 07.10.2025 Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per)

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 fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top