Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Both the petitioners in the above writ petitions were candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in a primary school in District Almora. It is admitted between the petitioners and the respondents that the appointment of an Assistant Teacher (Urdu) is a district level appointment. The present appointment was for District Almora. The advertisement was given on 5.2.2004 for four posts of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) out of which one was reserved for Scheduled Caste, one for Other Backward Class and two for general category. For the aforesaid selection, a written examination was conducted by the respondents on 29.5.2005 Consequent to the written examination a merit list was prepared of 10 candidates as under:-
Sr. No. Name of the Candidate Date of Birth Caste
1. Sri Gulam Mustafa 01-01-1962 Backward caste
2. Smt. Farha Fatima 07-09-1975 Backward caste
3. Smt. Rihana Khatoon 03-07-1972 Backward caste
4. Sri Mohammad Ayub Gulzar 01-06-1973 Backward caste
5. Smt. Sahista Khan 01-07-1968 Backward caste
6. Smt. Firdoss Khan 15-08-1973 Backward caste
7. Kr. Sabana Khatoon 30-06-1974 Backward caste
8. Sri Girish Chandra Paliwal 15-06-1976 General
9. Smt. Najma 01-11-1978 Backward caste
10. Smt. Sameena Khan 05-08-1966 Backward caste
In the said list, petitioner Sahista Khan is at Serial No. 5 and Mr. G.C Paliwal is at Serial No. 8. Since both the petitioners were not appointed and therefore they have filed the present writ petitions.
In the counter affidavit the stand of the State Government regarding appointment of petitioner Sahista Khan is that since she is at Serial No. 5 and there were only four posts, therefore, she could not be appointed. Regarding other petitioner i.e Mr. G.C Paliwal, the stand of the State Government is that there are many selected candidates who are above him in the merit and as such he cannot be given the appointment.
From the averments in the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, it appears that the stand of the State Government is absolutely unreasonable and the petitioners have been wrongly denied the appointment which in the normal course they ought to have been given by now. The reasons are as under:-
The senior most person in merit i.e Gulam Mustafa could not be appointed as by this time he was overage, as has been admitted by the State in the counter affidavit. The person who was at serial no. 2 has already been given appointment under Other Backward Class quota. The reasons shown for not giving the appointment to person at serial nos. 3 and 4 are that they have not secured 50 per cent marks in the written examination. Regarding the petitioner i.e Sahista Khan who is at serial no. 5 the reason shown is absolutely illogical which is that Sahista Khan is at serial no. 5, as the candidates at serial nos. 1, 3 and 4 have already been ruled out the appointment and the posts are still vacant, the appointment was liable to be given to petitioner Sahista Khan, on the own logic of the respondents.
Regarding the appointment to other petitioner i.e Mr. G.C Paliwal, again the same illogical stand is being given, which is that there are other candidates higher in merit and they are liable to be appointed. Considering both the cases the stand of respondents is not amenable to any reason. Therefore not giving the appointment to the petitioners is absolutely unjustified. There are two seats of general category lying vacant on which even according to the merit the petitioners are eligible and they can be given appointment.
All the same, on these facts, the Director of Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun is hereby directed to pass suitable orders considering the fact that this Court has already given its opinion that on the fact stated by the respondents, the denial of appointment to the petitioners seems to be unjustified for the reasons stated in the counter affidavit and annexures filed therein. Therefore it is directed that the Director of Education shall pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations already made by this Court.
With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Comments