IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 114 of 2009 Additional Director, Education (Madhyamik), Directorate of Education, Uttarakhand and others. …Appellants. Versus Sundar Lal Uniyal and another. …Respondents. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The Managing Committee of Sri Guru Ram Rai Inter College (hereinafter referred to as the College) issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of teachers with the following qualifications:- “One Trained M.Sc. or B.Sc. with Maths. Preference will be given to experienced hand.” A perusal of the advertisement reveals that it was expressly mentioned therein that salary for the advertised posts would be as approved by the Government. 2. The respondents herein submitted their applications in response to the aforesaid advertisement. On the culmination of the process of selection, they were appointed as C.T. Grade teachers on 2.9.1974. Both the respondents, having been selected and appointed, joined as C.T. Grade teachers on 3.7.1974. 3. Soon after their induction into the employment of the College, they submitted representations claiming appointment as L.T. Grade teacher. The representations made by the respondents were rejected by an order dated 12.9.2003. Based thereon, the respondents approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1409 of 2003. 2 The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.10.2008. 4. Through the instant Special Appeal, the appellants have assailed the order dated 14.10.2008 vide which Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1409 of 2003 was allowed by this Court. 5. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the College itself had recommended the appointment of the respondents as C.T. Grade teachers, and as such, the appellants had approved the aforesaid recommendation. We have examined the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. It would be relevant to mention, that on the issue under reference, namely, whether the respondents were liable to be appointed as L.T. Grade Teachers or C.T. Grade teachers, an inquiry was conducted by the appellants themselves. The said inquiry was conducted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. The factual details emerging from the inquiry are available on the record of this case in the form of a communication addressed by the aforesaid Regional Deputy Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri dated 1.6.1989. A perusal of the aforesaid communication reveals that the College had advertised the posts of L.T. Grade teachers. The posts advertised by the College were vacancies which emerged as a consequence of L.T. Grade teachers, who had left the service of the College. In other words, the vacancies advertised were those of L.T. Grade teachers. A perusal of the advertisement, extracted hereinabove, also reveals that the prescribed qualifications depicted therein were those as had been laid down for L.T. Grade teachers. The qualifications prescribed for C.T. Grade teachers are 3 lower. In sum and substance, therefore, not only did the College advertise the posts of L.T. Grade teachers, the advertisement also depicted qualifications prescribed for the posts of L.T. Grade teachers. All this was in response to vacancies of L.T. Grade teachers, which had occurred in the college, when certain L.T. Grade teachers left the employment of the college. As such, we are of the view, that there was no justification whatsoever either in seeking approval for the appointment of the respondents as C.T. Grade teachers or the consequential recommendation. There being no posts of C.T. Grade teacher, the only permissible justification could have been that the respondents should have been appointed as L.T. Grade teachers. This determination has also been rendered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 14.10.2008. On account of the factual position depicted hereinabove, we are satisfied that the aforesaid conclusion was fully justified. 6. In view of the above, we find no merit in the instant Special Appeal and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 02.4.2010 Rathour