IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 308 of 2011 Anoop Kumar and others ..….…… Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.3 to 16. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date : 30th December, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) The appellants, as appears from the submissions made on their behalf, are either Bachelor in Arts or Bachelor in Science and in addition thereto had B.Ed. qualification. According to the notification dated 23rd August, 2010, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has permitted people having qualification as that of the appellants to be appointed as teachers for Classes I to V upto 1st January, 2012 provided they undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognized six months’ special programme in elementary education. For the purpose of filling up the vacant posts of teachers, an advertisement was published on 14th/15th December, 2011. At the instance of the writ petitioners, the said advertisement has been stayed by an interim order with a direction that the writ petitions be listed on 5th January, 2012. 2. In the appeal, it is being contended that in the event selection is not completed before 1st January, 2012, the appellants will lose out opportunity of being appointed and, accordingly, they have preferred the present appeal with an application for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned order. 2 3. We think that what the official respondents could do to reach to the appellants the benefit of the said notification was squarely done by issuing advertisement dated 14th /15th December, 2011 and, similarly, what could be done by the appellants in that regard were also completed by them by responding to the said advertisement and, accordingly, there was no difficulty in selecting the appellants provided they were found fit to be selected, and to appoint them on or before 1st January, 2012, but by reason of the order of the Court, the actions thus taken and further actions that were contemplated have been stayed and, that too, without hearing the appellants. We do not think that by such action on the part of the Court, any right of the appellants, if any, accrued under the said notification can at all be affected. 4. With the clarification as above, we refuse to grant leave to the appellants to prefer the appeal, and instead, permit them to approach the learned Single Judge in order to put forward their contention before the learned Single Judge. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.12.2011 30.12.2011 P. Singh