2025:UHC:10279 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 1 0 6 5 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Datt Kandpal, Deputy AG, for the State. (2) There is a government aided minority institution in District Almora, which advertised three vacancies on the post of Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit, Urdu and Arts) on 22.12.2021. The said selection could not be completed and, therefore, another advertisement was issued on 22.11.2022. This time, however, one post of Assistant Teacher, LT Grade (General) was also added, even though permission was not obtained by the Management for advertising the said post. Petitioner contends that he has been selected for the post of Assistant Teacher, Urdu and the select list was sent by the Management to Chief Education Officer for approval, however Chief Education Officer refused approval only on the ground that in the subsequent advertisement, post of Assistant Teacher, LT Grade (General) was added without prior perm ission of the competent authority. (3) It is contended that petitioner is not responsible for the act of omission or commission of the Management; petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher, Urdu, therefore approval for his appointment cannot be refused on the ground that another post was added in the advertisement without prior permission. 2025:UHC:10279 (4) Learned State Counsel, however, submits that Section 38 of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 deals with minority institutions. Sub-section (5) of Section 38 provides that anyone aggrieved by refusal to approve the recommendation of the selection committee can approach the Regional Additional Director of Education. (5) Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that remedy under Section 38(5) is available only to Committee of Management and not to a candidate like the petitioner. (6) Since the statute provides a remedy of representation to ensure that the higher authority in Education Department has the opportunity to revisit the matter, therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, this Court thinks that petitioner should be given an opportunity to invoke the remedy under Section 38(5) of the aforesaid Act, so that the competent authority in the department may have relook in the m atter. (7) In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, writ petition is disposed of by directing the Regional Additional Director of Education to consider petitioner’s representation against refusal to grant approval of his appointment, if such representation is made within two weeks from today. This Court hopes and expects that decision on petitioner’s representation shall be taken by Regional Additional Director of Education within six weeks of its receipt. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 1 9 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.11.19 17:40:15 +05'30' 2025:UHC:10279