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

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 13

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SHAILESH DAVID – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPSS 952 / 2025



Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions and COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

No

Registrar’s order with

Signatures

WPSS 952/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Dr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr. Ganesh Datt Kandpal,

Deputy AG, with Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht,

Additional CSC, for the State.

(2) Petitioners participated in a selection for appointment as Assistant Teacher in a minority institution in District Almora. According to them, the selection committee recommended their name for appointment, however Chief Education Officer has declined to grant approval for appointing the petitioners, when approval was sought by the Management. In this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following

reliefs:

“i. to issue a writ order or

direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Opposite Parties/Respondent no. 3 to give joining to the petitioners as per the results of the interviews for the posts of Assistant teachers held on 23.01.2023 and 24.01.2023 as mentioned in the response of the contempt petition no. 165 of 2025 contained as Annexure No. 11

in this writ petition.

ii. to issue a writ order or

direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Opposite Parties/Respondent

no. 3 to immediate take action and interest in the giving joining to the petitioners to the post of Assistant teachers.”

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 1065 of 2025 and submitted that the issued involved in this writ petition is covered by the said judgment, therefore this writ petition also deserves to be decided in terms of the said judgment.

(4) Learned State Counsel also concedes that the issue involved in the present case is identical to the one decided in WPSS No. 1065 of 2025, therefore he has no objection if the present writ petition is also decided in terms of the judgment rendered in the said writ petition.

(5) In view of consensus between the parties, this writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 1065 of 2025.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

5.1.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR D2p3De.CoiN a5rg 9sti:4et 1 tca: a2N =l2 lC50Iu0 yNo7m B s,d36 ioEbega.050n 13Hr8e ,26Id cGa3 n bDyC8 CP1P : OR93,R A5sUAtBE=BfO8T 7 OU9DT+ D1H0 FHCAa5 K K9R'3UT6U50M MKEHA17R R4 NB3 K9aDH4f,8A0NE2FD1Dc, 5o08u6=H2AIfGCe aC1OA4UBR56T81 aOf03F52UeDTFb6A1R9C8AdK54H86AC2N5D073F,

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