2025:UHC:2897-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 962 of 2017 22 April, 2025 State of Uttarakhand & others … Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar Mandal & others … Respondents With Special Appeal No. 1015 of 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. G.S. Negi and Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT 1. There is delay of 193 days in filing SPA No. 962 of 2017. Prayer for condonation of delay is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. 2. For the reasons stated in the delay condonation application, the same (IA No. 14809 of 2017) is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Since common question of law and fact are involved in these appeals, therefore, these are being heard and decided together. However, for brevity, facts 1 2025:UHC:2897-DB of SPA No. 962 of 2017 alone are being considered and discussed. 4. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 1855 of 2016, which is extracted below:- “The service of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 24.08.2016 on the ground that petitioner was not eligible to the post of Assistant Teacher Primary School. Now, it is not the dispute that petitioner is fully eligible and qualified since the essential qualification has been recognized by the State Government in the year 2007. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.08.2016 (annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher Primary School, within a period of three weeks from today, with all consequential benefits.” 5. Appellant has challenged the said judgment on the ground that the Adhikari certificate possessed by writ petitioner (respondent herein) is not recognised as equivalent to High School, therefore, writ petitioner is not qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Elementary). 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, however, submits that his client passed Adhikari examination from Gurukul Vishwavidhyalaya Vrindavan, Meerut (U.P.) in the year 2003 and Adhikari examination conducted by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindavan was recognised by U.P. Board of Secondary Education till 2008 and by Uttarakhand Board of Secondary Education upto 27.08.2007. Thus, he submits that even if the recognition granted to Adhikari 2 2025:UHC:2897-DB examination was subsequently withdrawn will not render a candidate ineligible, who is otherwise eligible. He submits that his client passed Adhikari examination in 2003, when it was duly recognised by State Education Board of U.P. & Uttarakhand. 7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner draw our attention to judgment dated 09.08.2016 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No. 73 of 2014. In the said judgment, coordinate Bench answered a reference made by learned Single Judge, as follows:- “29. In view of above discussion, we answer the question formulated by learned Single Judge in the following manner:- “The certificate of Adhikari Pariksha issued by Gurukul Vishwavidhyalaya Vrindawan, Mathura prior to 2007, would be treated as equivalent to High School Examination of U.P. Board and Uttarakhand Board till 27.08.2007.”” 8. In the aforesaid judgment, coordinate Bench held that certificate of Adhikari examination issued by Gurukul Vishwavidhyalaya Vrindawan, Mathura prior to 2007, would be treated as equivalent to the High School Examination of U.P. Board and Uttarakhand Board, till 27.08.2007. Admittedly, writ petitioner passed Adhikari examination from the aforesaid Vishwavidhyalaya in the year 2003, therefore, termination of his service on the ground that Adhikari certificate possessed by him is not equivalent to High School Examination is unsustainable. Thus, learned Single Judge rightly interfered with the termination 3 2025:UHC:2897-DB order and directed for reinstatement of the writ petitioner. 9. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 05.04.2017 passed in WPSB No. 1855 of 2016. Thus, the special appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 22.04.2025 Aswal 4 NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.04.23 17:12:25 -07'00'