2025:UHC:1820-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.161 of 2016 Geeta Ram Navani ...Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents Presence: Mr. Aayush Gaur, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 to 4. Ms. Ananya Jain, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 & 6. Coram: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2063 of 2015. By the said judgment, challenge thrown by appellant to the order dated 03.07.2015, whereby respondent nos.5 and 6 were promoted to Group-3 post of Junior Clerk, was turned down. 2. For rejecting the challenge thrown by the appellant, learned Single Judge relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court, reported in 2007 (2) U.D., 691 (Shri Hira Singh Bhandari vs. District Inspector of Schools, Nainital & Another) for holding that certificate of Prathama issued to the appellant by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is not recognized as equivalent to High School, which was an essential qualification for promotion. 3. Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 is the letter issued by 1 2025:UHC:1820-DB Directorate of Education, on 24.10.2002, wherein it is mentioned that the certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are not recognized as equivalent to High School or Intermediate examination conducted by State Education Board. Appellant does not dispute that he possesses certificate of Prathama, which was issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. 4. In the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge rightly observed that unrecognized qualification possessed by the appellant is not sufficient for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. Thus, the challenge thrown by appellant to the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge is without any substance. Even otherwise, also the promotion given to respondent nos.5 & 6 was subsequently cancelled by Regional Additional Director (Elementary) Garhwal, Pauri vide orders dated 19.11.2016 which have been annexed as Annexure 2 collectively, to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 in the appeal. 5. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. Special Appeal fails and is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.03.2025 Arti 2