Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10531 (UTT)

VINOD SINGH RAWAT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/1399/2025 · 2025-08-25

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:7491 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1399/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel and Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner has challenged an advertisement issued by Authorised Controller, Secondary School Khadrasi, Nainidanda, District Pauri Garhwal, which is on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. By the said advertisement, applications were invited for appointment against one vacancy on the post of Junior Assistant. 4. Petitioner has challenged the said advertisement only on the ground that as per norms, advertisement has to be published in anyone of the following four newspapers: (i) Amar Ujala; (ii) Dainik Jagran; (iii) Rashtriya Sahara; & (iv) Hindustan; while, the advertisement has been issued in Hindi Daily ‘Rashtriya Sahara’ & ‘Shah Times’. 5. Perusal of the record reveals that a Coordinate Bench passed an order on 2025:UHC:7491 01.05.2024 in WPSS No. 1341 of 2023 directing the Committee of Management of the concerned school to conclude the selection process as early as possible. 6. From the order passed by Coordinate Bench, it is apparent that Coordinate Bench has endorsed advertisement made by the Committee of Management in Rishtriya Sahara & Shah Times. Even otherwise also, the Chief Education Officer cannot direct the Committee of Management to make advertisement in any particular newspaper, as the statutory requirement is that newspapers having wide circulation should carry such advertisement. The purpose of the advertisement is to notify vacancy to a prospective candidate. 7. Since petitioner is having knowledge of the advertisement, therefore, he cannot complain that the advertisement was not issued in the proper newspaper. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the selection process. 9. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.08.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21 CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.08.25 17:54:07 +05'30'