Advocates:
['S S YADAV', '', 'RAVI KANT SHARMA', 'C S C', 'SHUBHANG DOBHAL']

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1583 of 2021

Sarita Tiwari

…

Petitioner

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others

… Respondents

Advocates :

Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner

Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. CSC, for the State

Mr. Shubhang Dobahl, Advocate, for the respondents

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The Uttarakhand School Education Act was notified to be

made applicable in the State of Uttarakhand w.e.f. 1st January

2007. It also specifically dealt with the provisions for the

purposes of recognising the Secondary Education and laying

down the modalities of its Management, Regulation and

Appointment on the various cadre of sanctioned posts to the

aided and unaided Institutions and to the Institutions, which are

run and managed by the Government. Particularly, the internal

activities and administration of the aided Institution, may it be

having a status of that being a Minority Institution, which has

granted a special status under Article 30 of the Constitution of

India, but still the modalities for appointment, recognition, for its

internal administration, conduct of examination, are the aspects,

which have been provided under Section 24 of the Act, which

would be exclusively governed by the Regulations framed under

the said Act.

2.

While exercising the powers under Section 24 of the UK

School Education Act, 2006, the State of Uttarakhand had

notified the Uttarakhand School Education Regulations, which

deals with as per its Appendix 1, the qualification criteria, which

a candidate is mandatorily supposed to possess, for the purpose

of his or her consideration for recruitment in the Institutions,

2

which stand recognised under the Uttaranchal School Education

Act and the Regulations framed there under. The applicability of

the regulations doesn't carve out within it any exclusion of the

same for not being applicable to the Institutions, which enjoys a

minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

Meaning thereby, once the regulation it has a self-contained

provisions formulated under Section 24 of the Act, is a statutory

blend, and it would obviously governed the qualification criteria

and the eligibility of a candidate too, who are supposed to be

recruited in a recognised or an aided Institutions under the Act.

3.

The brief facts of the case are, that respondent No. 4 herein,

on 16th April 2021, had issued an advertisement, inviting the

applications from the probable candidates to be considered for

the purposes of appointment as Lecturer (English) in the

Institution of respondent No. 4, which claim itself to be a

minority Institution and having a protection of law in the field of

recruitment also and according to the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner, it could be extended even pertaining to

the modalities of the eligibility criteria, which is inclusive of the

age parameters also and hence it is contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of there being any

observations made to the contrary in the advertisement dated 16th

April 2021, since there was no observation made pertaining to

providing the upper age limit in the advertisement, it would lead

to an inference, as if the advertisement had permitted even the

candidates to extend their candidatures to be considered for

recruitment; irrespective of the bar of age, as provided by the

Regulations framed under Section 24 of the Uttaranchal School

Education Act.

3

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that in the

absence of there being any cut off age provided in the

advertisement, the petitioner cannot to be held to be non-suited to

be considered for appointment as a Lecturer (English) on the

ground that her candidature was barred by age.

5.

It is further not disputed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, that the state amended legis