Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5345 (UTT)

REKHA ARYA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/1306/2026 · 2026-05-18

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3805 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 1 3 0 6 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for respondent no. 6. 4. Petitioner was engaged as Chowkidar on contract in Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Vidyalaya, Jainti, District Almora and she served in that capacity between 2015-2023. 5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relies: - “i) Issue an appropriate order or direction directing the action of the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner as illegal, unjust, improper and malafide. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure No. 1) (Page No. 18- 20) and the subsequent proceedings initiated thereafter, so far as it relates to filling up the post of Sweeper/ Chowkidar through outsourcing in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Jaiti, District Almora. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to join her duties in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya, Jaiti District Almora on the post of Sweeper/ Chowkidar forthwith.” 2026:UHC:3805 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s services were terminated without assigning any reason. He further submits that petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity while terminating her services. He further submits that in 2023, petitioner fell ill and due to her medical condition, she applied for leave, however, when she recovered and returned for duty, she was not permitted to join. 7. Learned State Counsel, per contra has drawn attention of this Court to a notice dated 15.04.2023 issued by warden of the concerned school to the petitioner, which is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Perusal of the said notice indicates that petitioner was absent from duty without any intimation since 12.04.2023 and she was informed that in case she does not report back for duty within three days, then it shall be deemed that she is not interested in discharging duties anymore. Learned State Counsel submits that since petitioner did not report for duty despite that notice, therefore, an advertisement was issued and after selection, another person on contract was appointed as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper in place of the petitioner. Thus, learned State Counsel submits that it is not a case of termination of service and another person was appointed, as petitioner herself abstained from duties. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. As contract employee, petitioner do not hold any lien on the post of Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper. From the notice dated 15.04.2023, it is 2026:UHC:3805 apparent that petitioner herself left her job. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to illness petitioner could not report for duties for a certain period and she had sought time from the warden of the concerned school for rejoining duties, but, without waiting for the petitioner, the post was advertised. 10. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the disengagement of petitioner, mainly for two reasons-(i) petitioner was disengaged in 2023 and she has approached this Court in 2026 i.e. after three years; and (ii) as contract employee, petitioner does not hold any lien on the post and she was disengaged due to her absence from duty. 11. The writ petition, however, is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to the Project Director (respondent no. 2) regarding her reengagement/ reappointment. If she makes such representation within ten days from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within six weeks thereafter. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 18.05.2026 Navin