IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (MS) No. 583 of 2022 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Inter College and another. ………………… Petitioners.

Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……………Respondents.

Present:

Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, (through V.C.) learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General (through V.C.) with Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned counsel for the caveator.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Earlier the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.03.2022 observed that cancellation of appointment of the teachers smacks from malice and it happens to be de-hors to the provisions of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order so far it relates to the cancellation of the appointment of teachers, made in the petitioner institution, was be kept in abeyance till next date of listing. In pursuance to this order, teaching and non teaching staffs are still continuing in the petitioner’s institution. While passing this order dated 28.03.2022, the Coordinate Bench observed that salary would be paid by the petitioner’s institution from its own resources, which would be reimbursed, when the question of cancellation of grant-in-aid is adjudicated on its own merits by this Court.

2. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that this year, 294 students are enrolled in High School and 380 students are enrolled in Intermediate.

3. On the previous date, when this matter was heard on 25.03.2025, it has been apprised to this Court that Committee of Management is not in a position to disburse the salary to teaching and non teaching staff since there is no other sources of income except fee collected from the students. Consequently, after taking into consideration the submissions, as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court passed a detailed order on 25.03.2025 by observing therein that petitioner’s institution was brought within the purview of the grant-in-aid in the year of 2015 and thereafter, existing teaching and non- teaching staff were absorbed in the institution on 18.11.2016 but subsequently on a complaint, SIT was constituted and some persons were charge-sheeted and subsequently, based on the findings recorded by the SIT in its report, grant in aid of the institution was withdrawn on 05.01.2022 by observing that the grant-in-aid is not meant only for paying the salary of teaching and non- teaching staff, but also to run the institution which includes other expenses like maintenance, infrastructure.

4. Undisputedly, petitioner’s institution has no other source of income to pay salary of teaching and non teaching staff in compliance of previous order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench. Consequently, after observing that grant in aid is not meant for limited purposes, this Court was of the view that the Government should restore grant in aid keeping in view the future of 1300 students, who are studying in the institution and also for disbursement of salaries to teaching and non teaching staff, who are permitted to continue by order dated

28.03.2022.

5. Today, matter again came up for hearing in the pre lunch session. However, it is posted in post lunch session so that learned Advocate General may assist this Court why order passed by this Court dated 25.03.2025 has not been complied with.

6. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General for the State argued that if the order dated 25.03.2025 is implemented it would amount to final relief. Apart from this, he submits that appointments were procured by the teaching and non teaching staff by playing fraud, however, he has not disputed this fact that the petitioner’s institution was brought within the purview of grant in aid in the year 2015 and existing teaching and non- teaching staff were absorbed in the institution on 18.11.2016 subsequ