1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 169 of 2010(S/S) Amarjeet Kaur ………… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. C.K.Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, the learned brief holder for the State. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4, namely, the Committee of Management to allow the petitioner to join the office pursuant to the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the District Education Officer. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Institution managed by respondent no.4 and pursuant to a complaint dated 1st June, 2009 made by the Manager to the Director of School Education, the Director issued a letter dated 10th June, 2009 directing the District Education Officer to attach the petitioner in his office. Based on the said order of the Director of School Education, the District Education Officer issued an order dated 22nd June 2009 attaching the petitioner in the office of the District Education Officer. Subsequently by another order, the petitioner was attached in the office of the Block Education Officer by an order dated 1.10.2009. The aforesaid two attachment orders dated 22.6.2009 and 2 1.10.2009 were challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition 1068/2009, in which no interim order was passed and the said writ petition has been dismissed today as infructuous on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the attachment order was not stayed by the writ court, the petitioner apparently joined the place of attachment and now the District Education Officer has passed an order dated 22.2. 2010 canceling the attachment order and directing the petitioner to join the original place of posting i.e. in the office of the institution managed by respondent no.4. Further directions were also issued to respondent no.4 to permit the petitioner to join the service in his office. It is alleged that inspite of the withdrawal of the attachment order, the Committee of Management is not allowing the petitioner to join and, accordingly, the present writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus. The District Education Officer has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the attachment order was cancelled by an order dated 22.2.2010 and that necessary directions were subsequently issued by the District Education Officer vide letter dated 2nd March, 2010, 6th March, 2010, 11th March, 2010 and again on 3rd April, 2010, inspite of which the Committee of Management is not allowing the petitioner to join. The Committee of Management, respondent no.4 has also appeared and has filed a counter affidavit and has given the reasons for not allowing the petitioner to join. The respondents contended that on account of certain misconduct, the management had made several complaints before the authority seeking permission to terminate the services of the petitioner or to suspend her and also filed applications seeking permission to transfer her. It is alleged that all these requests were pending before the authorities and eventually, a 3 complaint was made by the management to the Director of School Education dated 1st June, 2009 and, based on such complaint, the Director issued instructions to the District Education Officer by its letter dated 10th June, 2009,who in turn passed the attachment order dated 22. 6. 2009. The learned counsel submitted that the District Education Officer had no power to recall the attachment order without seeking previous permission from the Director since, the initial attachment order was passed at the instance of the Director. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the order dated 22.2.2010 recalling the attachment order does not disclose any reason and, therefore, the said order is void and cannot be acted upon. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that against an order of the District Education Officer recalling the attachment order, the respondents have preferred an appeal before the Addl. Director of School Education, which is pending consideration and consequently, the order of the District Education Officer, could not be complied with, since the management thought fit to await the result of the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, the court is of the opinion that the action of respondent no.4 in not allowing the petitioner to join pursuant to the order of the District Education Officer dated 22.2.2010 is wholly arbitrary and unwarranted. The court finds that the Committee of Management is proceeding in its own fashion without adhering to the provisions of law contemplated under Section 39 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006, and the Regulations of 2009 framed therein. The court has perused the provision of Section 39 of Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 and the Regulations framed therein and finds that there is provision which would indicate that an order of attachment could be passed by an authority pending finalization of disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Subhash 4 Upadhyay, the learned brief holder for the State/respondent candidly submitted that there is no such provision for attachment of an employee in any other institution or department. This court further finds that the District Education Officer had passed the order of attachment, mechanically without applying its own mind quite apart from the fact that the authority has no power to pass an order of attachment. The court is constrained to observe that the order of attachment was passed at the behest of a superior authority. The court from a perusal of the counter affidavit of respondent no.4 does not find that any disciplinary proceedings for the removal of the petitioner has been initiated under Section 39 read with Regulations framed therein. There is nothing to indicate that the management has adopted due process as provided under the said Act and its Regulations. There is also nothing to indicate that any resolution has been passed by the Committee of Management resolving to punish the petitioner and that such resolution was pending approval before the authority concerned. In the light of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 to the effect that the District Education officer was required to take previous permission from the Director is wholly erroneous. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the committee of Management through its Manager respondent no.4 to forthwith allow the petitioner to join the service pursuant to the order of the District Education officer dated 22.2.2010 immediately upon the receipt of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 13.4.2010 Nishant