IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 430 of 2011 Vidya Negi ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents. Present : Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Advocate present for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher Primary School in the year 1989. Thereafter in the year 2006 in response to an advertisement for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in a private college, she applied after taking permission from her department. She was subsequently selected as a lecturer (Sanskrit) to impart evening classes in the said institute. In any case the petitioner had a valid consent for this from the concerned authority. On 21.6.2010 the recommendation was sent from the said private college to the Government for her absorption. There were certain objections from the District Education Officer. According to the petitioner this objection of the District Education Officer is wholly irrelevant because of the fact that the Director, Sanskrit Education has already given permission to the petitioner and had directed the respondents vide order dated 3.3.2011 and 15.3.2011 that this permission has already been granted in favour of the petitioner and the District Education Officer shall do the needful. According to the petitioner since the higher authority i.e. the Director has already passed this order therefore there was no occasion for the District Education Officer to raise objection in the matter. The situation as of present is that the petitioner 2 is not being absorbed for the objection being raised by the District Education Officer. The counsel representing the State, on the other hand, has alleged that the very fact that the petitioner was teaching in the Sanskrit College as well as imparting education in the primary school was not proper and in violation of law. Based on these rival contentions, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun who shall decide this controversy. In case there is no legal impediment as according to the petitioner there is a clearance of having departmental consent in her case, there should be no occasion for unnecessary withholding the absorption of the petitioner unless there are grounds for doing so. The Director, Sanskrit Education shall decide the issue as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of 6 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 2.9.2011 Avneet