IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1141 of 2011 Birendra Bahadur ...Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. Manoj Tiwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. P.Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. S. K.Mandal, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. S. K. Mandal, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. The petitioner is a candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade where the selections were made by the State of Uttarakhand. In the State of Uttarakhand certain number of posts were to be reserved for candidates who participated in the movement for the new State of Uttarakhand and a certificate was given to such persons as “Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari” (from hereinafter referred to as “Andolankari”). Subsequently, thereafter the Government of Uttarakhand has framed rules under Article 309 read with 162 of the Constitution of India. These rules are knows as “Uttarakhand Rajya Andolan Ke Ghayal/Jal Gaye Andolankariyo Ki Sewayojan Niyamawali, 2010”. In such rules it has given in proviso that such “Andolankari” who had either been arrested for 7 days or sustained injuries during the State agitation for the State of Uttarakhand are liable to get reservation for Group C and Group D post in the State of Uttarakhand shall be given such an appointment. In other words, a class has been created for the appointment on Group C and Group D posts and these appointments can only be made if the candidates have such qualification for such post. 2 The contention of the petitioner is that he is dependent of an “Andolankari” for which he has obtained a requisite certificate. The said requisite certificate is annexed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition, which has been issued by Additional District Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar which shows that the petitioner is a dependent of an “Andolankari”. Although, whether such appointment can be made by the government of Uttarakhand on a public post is an issue which is not before this Court. However, the fact of the matter is that whether the petitioner was liable to be considered under the category of “Andolankari”, only. Admittedly, the petitioner is not an “Andolankari” but only a dependent of “Andolankari”. The certificate also states that he is dependent of an “Andolankari”. Merely because he is a dependant of an “Andolankari”, such a certificate will not help the petitioner as the appointment can only be given to the “Andolankari”. Therefore no relief as being sought by the petitioner can be granted and the first relief prayed by the petitioner fails. As regarding the other issue raised by the petitioner that some of the candidates such as respondent nos. 5 and 6 presently impleaded in the writ petition and are represented by Mr. S. K. Mandal are either not eligible under the category of “Andolankari” or have obtained such a certificate after their selection, and there are favoritism and nepotism against them. 3. Though as far as the first claim of the petitioner is concerned, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, School Education, Uttarakhand/respondent no.1 to constitute an enquiry into the matter and credentials of all such candidates who have obtained appointment as and “Andolankari”, their credentials be verified and in case such appointment has been given to the candidates who do not deserve to get such appointment, under the rules, thereafter giving them an appropriate opportunity of hearing appropriate 3 orders be passed within a period of three month from the date a certified copy of this order is produce before him. 4. No order as to costs. 5. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, School Education, Uttarakhand/respondent no.1 free of cost for compliance of this order. Needless to say that needful be done by the concerned authority within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.11.2011 Kuldeep