Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7561 (UTT)

BHUPESH KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/920/2024 · 2025-09-26

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:8773 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 426/2024 WPSS 920/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Shafy, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State. (2) Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the writ petitions, these are being decided by this common judgment. (3) Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher (Urdu). At the time of their appointment, they were possessing Mollim-E-Urdu qualification. Subsequently, it was found that the qualification possessed by the petitioners is not as per the rules, therefore their services were terminated. (4) By means of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 426 of 2024, petitioners have sought the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioners on their respective post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) with continuity of service and with all consequential benefits. Or ii. In case the Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners may not be granted the aforesaid relief, in those circumstance, the respondents be directed to publish an advertisement for the recruitment of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Primary School in the District of Dehradun 2025:UHC:8773 and Pithoragarh, giving the relaxation of the upper age limit to the petitioners and they may also be directed to consider the qualification of the petitioners as B.Ed., in place of D.El.Ed. iii. In case the Hon’ble Court does not please to grant either of the aforesaid relief, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 5 crore to each of the petitioners as compensation.” (5) This Court cannot issue a direction to the employer to notify all the available vacancies for recruitment, however writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the candidature of petitioners, as and when the vacancies are notified. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 26.9.2025 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=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab1 98d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6 FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.09.26 19:31:20 +05'30' 2025:UHC:8773