CHANDRA KALA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-8-42
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 17,2012

Chandra Kala Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The Government of Uttarakhand organized the Teacher Eligibility Test-I, 2011 at the State level for primary teachers. In that respect, an advertisement was published on 29th April, 2011. In that, it was indicated, amongst others, that the person responding to the said advertisement must indicate that he is a permanent resident of the State. In order to show that the appellant was a permanent resident of the State, appellant approached and obtained from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lansdowne, a certificate certifying that the appellant is a domicile of Village Bhaduli, Patti Talai, Tehsil Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal. On the strength of the said certificate, appellant proved that the appellant is a permanent resident of the State of Uttarakhand. Being satisfied with the fact that the appellant is a permanent resident of the State of Uttarakhand, appellant was invited to appear in the said Test. Appellant succeeded in the said Test. Having had succeeded in the said Test, appellant became eligible for being appointed as Primary School Teacher. On 14th December, 2011, an advertisement was published. The object of the said advertisement was to invite applications from eligible candidates for supplying vacancies, as were available in various districts. It was indicated in the advertisement that in so far as the District of Pauri Garhwal is concerned, there are 266 vacancies, whereas in so far as the District of Dehradun is concerned, there are 233 vacancies. In the advertisement, it was indicated that the person responding to the said advertisement must be a resident of that district, for which he/she is seeking to be appointed. Appellant applied for the vacancies available in the District of Dehradun. While doing so, appellant furnished her TET Certificate, wherein it has been recorded that the appellant is a permanent resident of District Pauri Garhwal. Because TET Certificate of the appellant indicated that she is resident of District Pauri Garhwal and since she applied for available posts in the District of Dehradun, she was informed that her candidature for the District of Dehradun is not being accepted. In the circumstances, appellant filed a writ petition, wherein she contended that she has shifted her residence in praesenti at Dehradun. She also disclosed that she is a voter in the District of Dehradun. It was contended that in such circumstances, her candidature could not be rejected. In the body of the writ petition, it was not stated that the voter identity card received by the deponent on 5th September, 2006 was enclosed with the application in response to the said advertisement dated 14th December, 2011. The said advertisement was to be responded on or before 25th December, 2011. Since 25th December, 2011 was an universal holiday, the time to respond to the said advertisement stood automatically extended till 26th December, 2011. According to the appellant, she responded to the said advertisement on 19th December, 2011. The voter identity card was issued to her on 5th September, 2006. In the event appellant was a voter of Dehradun on 5th September, 2006, because she was residing at that point of time at Dehradun, she could not hold out, while responding to the advertisement for Teacher Eligibility Test-I, 2011, that she was a permanent resident of District Pauri Garhwal. She, however, represented as late as in 2011 that she is still a permanent resident of District Pauri Garhwal. In the circumstances, appellant was not entitled to represent, while responding to the advertisement dated 14 December, 2011, that she is a resident of District Dehradun. Inasmuch as, the challenge thrown to non acceptance of her response to the said advertisement dated 14 December, 2011 has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal, for the reasons already indicated above, we refuse to entertain the appeal and dismiss the same.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.