IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition ( S/ B) No. 3 of 2019 Dr. Lalit Prasad Joshi … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional CSC, for the State.

J U D G M E N T Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

( Per: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

According to petitioner, he was appointed as Lecturer in an unaided degree college, namely, Lal Bahadur Shashtri Degree College, Halduchaur, District Nainital, in the year 2003 and subsequently, he was appointed as Principal in the said college w.e.f. 8.11.2011. According to petitioner, his appointment as Principal was duly approved by Kumaon University. The said college was provincialised vide Govt. Order dated 6.11.2015. Petitioner’s claim for absorption in the service of provincialised college was rejected on the ground that petitioner was not serving in the college on the date of provincialisation.

2. Petitioner contends that he proceeded on long leave w.e.f. 1.8.2012 to 25.9.2016 and resumed duties in the college on 26.9.2016. He contends that many other teachers, who were not serving in the college on the date of provincialisation, namely, Mr. Himansu Joshi, Mr. Girish Joshi, Smt. Prema Bhatt and Mrs. Hema Jeena, who were appointed on or after 29.8.2016, were absorbed in the services of the provincialised college, therefore the ground taken for rejecting petitioner’s claim for absorption is unsustainable.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to para 12 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 18.10.2019, filed by Mr. K.B. Tripathi, Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, which is extracted below:

“12. That in reply to the contents of para no. 17 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is submitted that details regarding the absorption of mentioned employees is given below as per the details provided by the principal of the college vide letter no. 2162/Samayogen/2019-20 dated 20.8.2019 and letter no. 215/2016-17 dated 31.1.2017:-

S/No. Name of Date of Designation/ present employee joining post

1. Mr. 1.9.2016 Junior Assistant Himansu Joshi

2. Mr. Girish 29.8.2016 Junior Assistant Joshi

3. Smt. Prema 29.8.2016 Lab Assistant Bhatt Psychology

4. Mrs. Hema 29.8.2016 Lab Assistant Jeena Geography

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since other persons, who were appointed for the first time in the year 2016, after provincialisation of the college, were also regularized in the service, therefore, petitioner, who was serving since 2003 and was appointed as Principal in the year 2011, could not have been denied the benefit of regularization.

5. Learned State Counsel, however, reiterates the stand taken by the State Govt. in the impugned order that since petitioner was not serving in the college on the date of provincialiation, therefore, he was not entitled for absorption, as per the stipulation made in the Govt. Order whereby college was provincialised. He further submits that there is no material or document, whatsoever, filed with the writ petition to show that the petitioner had applied for long leave or for that matter, his prayer for leave was sanctioned by the competent authority or not. He further submits that leave application should have been forwarded to the competent authority in the Higher Education Department or the University, but there is nothing to show that the application for leave made by the petitioner was forwarded to any Govt. or University authority.

6. Be that as it may, since petitioner’s stand that employees who were not serving on the date of provincialisation in the college have been absorbed in the govt. service, finds support from the supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the State Govt., therefore, without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is permitted to approach the State Govt. by making a representation. Accordingly, we dispose of t