Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1634 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. PRAKASH CHANDRA SINGH DANU

SPA/74/2019 · 2025-07-14

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Subhash Upadhyay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:6094-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA/74/2019 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Rahul Verma, Additional Advocate General for the State/appellants. 2. None present for the respondent. 3. There is delay of 298 days in filing this appeal. 4. For the reasons indicated, we condone the delay. Delay Condonation Application 971 of 2019 stands allowed. 5. This intra-court appeal is directed against the final order dated 16.02.2018 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2407 of 2016. Impugned order is reproduced below:- “Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner has passed the B.Ed. examination in the year 2007. The petitioner’s quality points were 62.403. Last selected candidate has passed B.Ed. in the year 2006 and his quality points were 62.995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that various posts are still lying vacant against which his case can be considered for appointment. Accordingly, the writ petition is 2025:UHC:6094-DB disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question, if vacancies are available, within a period of three months from today. Pending application, if any, stands vacated.” 6. Learned State Counsel submits that there is no vacancy available in the department against which petitioner can be appointed. 7. We are not impressed by the submission made by learned State Counsel. Learned Single Judge has simply asked the authorities to examine writ petitioner’s claim for appointment, subject to availability of vacancy. If what the State Counsel submits is correct, then that itself is a valid ground for denying appointment to petitioner, by passing a reasoned order. Thus, we do not find any scope for interference. Present appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 14.07.2025 14.07.2025 Rajni RAJINI GUSAIN Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48 448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f 17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B 4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F530 616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.07.15 23:02:17 -07'00' 2025:UHC:6094-DB