SMT. JYOTI DEVI (DUKLAN) Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-3-58
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 13,2012

Smt. Jyoti Devi (Duklan) Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, C.J. - (1.) ON 28th November 2005, an advertisement was published, where it was indicated that posts of Shiksha Mitra in various Development Blocks in District Pauri Garhwal are available for being supplied. It was indicated in the advertisement that a post is available in the school situate at village Dhaura, Development Block Kaljikhal/Gram Sabha Kund. It was also indicated in the advertisement that the said post is reserved for Scheduled Caste community. The advertisement made it clear that anyone responding to the same must respond on or before 6th December, 2005. Appellant in these two appeals, admittedly responded to the said advertisement and while doing so, held out that she is interested to join the vacant post of Shiksha Mitra available in the school situate at village Dhaura. Admittedly, apart from the petitioner -appellant, no one else applied for appointment in the said post on or before 6th December, 2005. On 17th January 2006, appellant was appointed. On 19th January 2006, the said appointment was cancelled, whereupon, a formal order of cancellation was issued on 27th January 2006. None of these orders gave any reason for cancellation of the appointment of the appellant. In the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging those orders dated 19th January, 2006 and 27th January 2006, the appellant contended that there was a corrigendum to the advertisement which was dated 6th December 2005, whereby a correction was made of the Gram Sabha, within whose territory the said school was situate, by replacing Gram Sabha Kund by Gram Sabha Dangi and, at the same time the reservation for Scheduled Caste was also removed and, the post was reserved for female candidates only. The fact remains, that there was no corrigendum to the advertisement. Before us reliance was placed upon a letter written by Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Pauri Garhwal to Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha Dangi, Development Block Kaljikhal. It is significant to note that the said advertisement was published by Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Pauri Garhwal. Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha, Dangi, Development Block Kaljikhal had nothing to do with publication of the said advertisement. If there was infact a mistake in the said advertisement, the same could only be corrected by the person, who had put up the advertisement. He did nothing. By writing a letter to the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha Dangi, mistake if any, in the advertisement could not be rectified. In the circumstances, the conclusion would be that the appellant did not have the requisite eligibility pursuant to the advertisement for being appointed to the post in question. If the appellant, which is not in dispute, was not a member of Scheduled Caste community, question of appointing the appellant in the said post, which had been advertised to be reserved for Scheduled Caste community, did never arise. An appointment given to the appellant in the said post could at any point of time be cancelled, even without giving her a notice. As the appellant got the appointment, despite being not a member of the Scheduled Caste community, in the said post on the strength of the said letter written by Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Pauri Garhwal dated 6th December 2005, and since the contents of the said letter was not made known to the people at large by publishing a corrigendum, Rekha Devi filed a writ petition, and contended that the appellant cannot remain appointed in the said post as all and sundry, who are otherwise eligible for being appointed in the said post, should be given an opportunity for being selected for appointment in the said post. It was contended that through the mechanism adapted by the appellant in collusion with the respondents in the writ petition of Rekha Devi, those people were kept in dark to the effect that they are also eligible for being considered for appointment to the said post. The fact which emerged in the said writ petition was that Rekha Devi had also applied but not on time and also not to the authority to whom the application ought to have had been made, but to some other authority, who was to look into the applications after the initial scrutiny by the authority who was to receive the applications. While the learned Judge dealing with the writ petition went into the merits of the case of the appellant, as made out in her writ petition, but did not go into the questions raised in the writ petition of Rekha Devi only because, by the judgment and order under appeal, the learned Judge directed re -advertisement of the post and to make the same available to women of all community. The learned Judge while dealing with the matter proceeded on the basis that the mistakes as crept in the advertisement were rectified by a corrigendum, when infact no corrigendum was issued. The advertisement remained the same. The same was published by the Additional District Education Officer (Basic). Additional District Education Officer (Basic) did not take any step to correct the mistake, if any. By writing a letter on 6th of December, 2005 to the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha, Dangi, he could not correct a mistake in an advertisement which has been published and brought to the notice of the world at large. In the circumstances, the appellant in terms of the advertisement, was incompetent to respond for the post in question for she did not belong to Scheduled Caste community. On the basis of personal knowledge of the appellant acquired either through the Additional District Education Officer (Basic) or from the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha, Dangi, that the said reservation has been removed, the appellant could not offer herself for the post in question. Giving an opportunity to the appellant to apply for the post upon removal of the reservation and preventing others from applying for the post in question by advertising the reservation, smacks the appointment of the appellant. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the ultimate conclusion contained in the judgment and order under appeal. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. It is our duty to point out, that despite noting that the appellant was ineligible to respond the advertisement, we have permitted continuance of the appellant as directed by and under the order under appeal, only taking into account the sufferings that the students of the school may suffer in the event cancellation of the appointment of the appellant is given effect to from the date of dismissal of the appeal.;


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