HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Recall Application No. 4 of 2025 And Impleadment Application No. 5 of 2025 In Writ Petition(S/S) No. 27 of 2023 Saurav Panwar ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent no.4. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the applicant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Instant petition was decided by this Court on 27.03.2025. 2. Now, a recall application as well as the impleadment application has been filed by the applicant Sushil Kumar. 3. It is the case of the applicant that he was working as Vyayam Teacher in Chaudhary Bharat Singh, DAV, Inter College, Jhabrera, Haridwar (“the College”), but, in order to adjust the petitioner as Vyayam Teacher, his services were terminated on 10.10.2019. But, the case of the applicant has been resolved by the Additional Director, Education, Garhwal Region (Secondary Education), Pauri (“the Additional Director, Education”) by the order dated 24.08.2014, which order has been challenged by the Management Committee, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1796 of 2024, Committee of Management Vs. State of Uttarakhand (“the first writ 2 petition), in which, on 24.09.2024, stay order has been passed by this Court. 4. Objections have also been filed by the petitioner on the applications file by the applicant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was working as a Vyayam Teacher in the College. His services were terminated on 10.10.2019, but in the year 2024, the Additional Director, Education has directed the Management Committee to give joining to the applicant, but that order dated 24.08.2024 of the Additional Director, Education has been challenged by the Management Committee in the first petition, in which this Court has passed an interim order on 24.09.2024. It is argued that the fact of the pendency of the first petition was not brought before the Court when instant petition was filed. It is argued that if the Management loses its case in the first petition, the cause of the applicant would survive and he would be entitled to reinstate in the service. Therefore, the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in the case deserves to be recalled. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant has no cause. He would submit that the applicant was terminated from service on 10.10.2019. He did file a Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2854 of 2019, Sushil Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand (“the second petition), but the second petition was dismissed in default on 10.06.2021. He submits that, in fact, termination order dated 10.10.2019, passed against the applicant was confirmed by 3 the Additional Director, Education on 15.12.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the status of the applicant is as a terminated employee today. The termination order has never been revoked. He submits that in the first petition, the challenge was made to that order of the Additional Director, Education by which the Management was directed to give joining to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, until the termination is revoked, the applicant may not be given joining and that is what has been considered in the first petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 adopts the arguments, as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The challenge in the instant petition was made to the rejection of the representation of the petitioner, by which the grant of honorarium in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. 10. In para 4 of the judgment dated 27.03.2025, a fact is noted that the applicant was terminated from the service. This fact is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the applicant has not disputed the factual narration. But according to him, by an order of the Additional Director, Education, the Management has been directed to give joining to the applicant in the school. He also submits that the order confirming cancellation dated 15.12.2021, by which the Additional Director, Education confirmed the termination of the applicant is without any reason or basis. 11. Fact remains that the instant petition was limited to the extent of grant of honorarium to the petitioner on the position he was working. His appointment, as such, was not in issue. Even today, it is not disputed that the applicant was terminated once, a 4 termination which was subsequently confirmed by the education authority. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in case, the petitioner succeeds in the earlier petition which has been filed by the Management against the order of Additional Director, Education by which the applicant has been permitted to join the services, the consequences would be joining of the applicant. 13. In fact, in paras 13 and 14 of the judgment dated 27.03.2025, this Court has also noted that Sushil Kumar was working as Assistant Teacher, Vyayam/Kala/PT and the petitioner was appointed as PTA Assistant Teacher, Vyayam only. The judgment dated 27.03.2025 has not dealt with the validity of the termination of the applicant. Therefore, merely because subsequently, the applicant has been directed by the education authority to join does not make basis for recalling the judgment dated 27.03.2025. Accordingly, recall application as well as impleadment application deserves to be dismissed. 14. The recall application and impleadment application are dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.03.2026 Jitendra.