HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No. 1699 of 2020 09 September, 2025 Hema Pant --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate for respondent no. 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Intermediate College, Bisabajerh, Pithoragarh is a Government Aided Intermediate College. The Management of the said college issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Science). 2. Since petitioner possessed all eligibility conditions, therefore, she also responded to the said advertisement. It is the case of the petitioner that the selection committee constituted as per provisions of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 and the Regulations framed thereunder, recommended the petitioner for appointment and the Management of the concerned college has referred the matter to the Chief Education Officer, Pithoragarh for approval. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that Chief Education Officer is sitting tight over the matter and he has not granted approval to petitioner’s appointment since 24.03.2017. 1 4. By means of this Writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the new impugned advertisement issued by respondent no.5 (Contained As Annexure No.9 to this writ petition) and further pleased and to quash the selection process which has been started pursuant to impugned advertisement till time and direct the respondents not to create third party interest on the post in question. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.5 to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner as per her selection on the post of Assistant Teacher Lt Grade (Science) (unreserved) in pursuance to the result of interview dated 15.03.2017. iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 and 4 to grant approval on the selection which was conducted by the committee of management as per the result of the select/merit list prepared by the selection committee in the light of the Regulation 2009.” 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the Regulations framed under Uttarakhand School Education Act were amended vide notification dated 04.01.2017 and by the amendment in the Regulations, the weightage provided to viva voce was reduced from 25 to 5. He submits that the advertisement, whereby applications were invited, was published in newspapers on 10.11.2016 and the interview was held on 05.03.2017, therefore, according to him, the amended Regulations would apply to the selection in question. 6. Learned counsel for the parties are unanimous on the point that similar issue has been decided by Division bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 20.08.2019, rendered in Special Appeal No. 983 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others),. Paragraph nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- 2 “68. It is possible that, in the light of the change in the criteria for awarding quality point marks, the writ petitioners’ right to be considered for appointment as Lecturers and Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) may be defeated since, on application of the 2017 amendment, they may no longer be eligible to be called for interview in case the quality point marks are awarded in terms of the 2017 amendment to the 2009 Regulations, and not the pre-amended 2009 Regulations. This would, undoubtedly, affect their vested right to be considered for appointment to the post of Lecturers and Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade). Further in Special Appeal Nos.983 and 1004 of 2018, as against 17 posts (15 posts of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) and 02 posts of Lecturers), for which a common advertisement was issued, appointment letters were issued for four posts on 18.10.2016 and for nine other posts on 20.12.2016. It is only for the remaining four posts could interviews not be held, i.e. three posts of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) and one post of Lecturer, only because the subject experts, forming part of the interview committee, were not available. We see no justification, in such circumstances, to now direct that the selection to these posts be undertaken in terms of the 2017 amendment to the 2009 Regulations. The writ petitioners in Special Appeal Nos.983 and 1004 of 2018, and in Special Appeal No. 27 of 2019, shall be considered for selection, and interviews shall held, only in terms of the pre-amended 2009 Regulations, as the 2017 amendment, which affects their vested rights to be considered for appointment to these posts by way of direct recruitment, cannot be applied retrospectively. 69. The appellant-writ petitioner in Special Appeal No.528 of 2019, however, stands on a different footing. All that has happened in that case is that an advertisement has been issued, and applications were invited pursuant thereto. The appellant therein had merely submitted her application form, and nothing more. Since quality point marks, as prescribed under the pre-amended Regulations, have not been awarded, the applicant would not know whether or not she would fall within the ratio of 1:7 to be short-listed for interview. The petitioner cannot claim any right, therefore, for her candidature to be considered only in terms of the pre- amended Regulations. In this context it is useful to note that, in Dhirendra Sundar Das [15], the Supreme Court held that the respondents, who had merely been recommended by their respective departmental authorities, could not be considered to be 'eligible' for appointment by way of promotion or selection under the erstwhile Regulations, since the steps set out in the Regulations had not been completed prior to the repeal of the old Rules i.e. (i) Regulation 7-preparation of a list of suitable candidates by the Selection Board; (ii) Regulation 8-consultation with the Orissa Public Service Commission; (iii) Regulation 9-recommendation of the 3 Orissa Public Service Commission; and (iv) Regulation 10-preparation and placement of final list before the State Government for appointment; and the respondents had not acquired an accrued or vested right of selection or promotion to posts in accordance with the old Rules, since their names had never been considered for selection or promotion beyond the stage contemplated under Regulation 6. 70. In the present case also, no further action was taken, prior to the 2017 amendment to the 2009 Regulations, except to receive applications pursuant to the advertisement. Mere receipt of applications, without anything more, would not confer any right on the applicant-appellant to claim that she should be considered only in terms of the pre-amended 2009 Regulations. Her entitlement to be considered, if at all, can only be in terms of the Regulations in force i.e. the 2017 amendment to the 2009 Regulations. 71. As a result Special Appeal No. 983 of 2018, Special Appeal No. 1004 of 2018 and Special Appeal No. 27 of 2019 are allowed, and the respondents are directed to issue call letters to the short-listed candidates therein, and conduct interviews, in terms of the pre-amended 2009 Regulations at the earliest and, in any event, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. All the other Special Appeals i.e. Special Appeal No. 683 of 2018, Special Appeal No. 763 of 2018, Special Appeal No. 951 of 2018, Special Appeal No. 221 of 2019, Special Appeal No. 236 of 2019, Special Appeal No. 298 of 2019 and Special Appeal No. 528 of 2019, are dismissed. The process of selection, for appointment to the posts of Lecturers and Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) in these private aided institutions, shall be held in terms of the 2017 amendment to the 2009 Regulations with utmost expedition, preferably within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. No costs.” 7. In view of the consensus between the parties that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 983 of 2018, this writ petition is also decided in terms of the said judgment. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Dt: 09.09.2025 Navin 4 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131b b4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D65 3D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.09.10 11:44:31 +05'30'