2026:UHC:4414 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1256/2019 Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. P. Dhariyal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Avidit Naliyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 4. According to petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in an unaided school in the year 2010; the said school was included in the grand-in-aid list on 27.02.2014. Grievance raised by petitioner is that other persons, who were serving as Teacher in the said school before 27.02.2014, were absorbed against posts created by State Government and they are now getting salary from State exchequer while petitioner was denied similar benefit and he is being paid salary by the Management of the school. 5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) To summon the complete record pertaining to the case. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. April, 2014 i.e. the date since when his services were transferred to respondent no. 4 school and, (iii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner since April, 2014 i.e. since the date his services has been transferred to respondent no. 4, within such period of time as framed by this Hon’ble 2026:UHC:4414 Court along with the interest @ 18% till the date of actual payment of the entire arrears. 6. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that petitioner was not possessing B.Ed. qualification, which is essential for appointment as Assistant Teacher, (L.T. Grade) in the year 2010 when petitioner claims to have been appointed. Petitioner claims to have obtained B.Ed. qualification in the year 2011 from a college in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, but he did not seek leave from the concerned school, where he was reportedly serving, for upgrading his qualification. Thus, it is contended that since petitioner was not qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher on the date he was appointed in 2010, therefore, there is no question of his absorption against a post created by State Government. 7. Having regard to the prayer made by petitioner, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if the Competent Authority is directed to look into the grievance raised by petitioner. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting petitioner to make representation to respondent no. 2. If he makes representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken within three months thereafter. Management is directed to pay salary regularly to the petitioner for a period of three months or till decision is taken on petitioner’s representation. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 02.06.2026 Aswal 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=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A5853172 6FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.06.02 06:10:07 -07'00' 2026:UHC:4414