IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting (Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of Case W.P. No.74 of 2008 (S/B) Date of decision :-22.05.2008 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not approved for reporting Date :-22.05.2008 Initials of Judge Note :- Bench Reader will attach this at the top of the first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL W.P. No. 74 of 2008 (S/B) M.K. Mircha s/o Sri Anand Swaroop Sharma At present working as Principal Pandit Govind ballabh Pant Intermediate College Kashipur, U.S. Nagar …….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.5. Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally today at the motion hearing stage without admitting it for hearing. 2. A very short controversy is involved for consideration and adjudication in this petition. On 30th November 2007 Communication No. 694/XXIV-2/2007 was issued by the Secretary, Education Department addressed to the Director, School Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. This Communication relates to the subject of the re-appointment of such retiring teachers in Government Schools as well as Government Aided Institutions who on attaining/reaching the age of superannuation would be retiring in the mid-session but can be re-appointed for the remainder of the academic session with a view to maintain continuity in the academic dispensation system of the Educational Institutions concerned. One of the conditions forming an integral part of the said Communication was that such retiring teachers of Government Aided Institutions must apply to the Managing Committee of the Institutions concerned at least six months before the date of retirement, indicating his request as well as willingness for re- appointment and accordingly the Managing Committee in turn, as per this clause, has been authorized to issue order for re-appointment, after obtaining the approval of the concerned competent Education Officer of the State Government. 3. It is the undisputed case of the parties before us that the petitioner applied to the Managing Committee of respondent no.5 Institution on 30th November 2007. The Managing Committee of respondent no.5 Institution accordingly sent a request to respondent no.4 for obtaining his approval for the re-appointment of the petitioner. 4. Vide Communication No.Ash.M.27992-Reappointment/2007-08 dated 14th March 2008 respondent no.4 however returned the request of respondent no.5 Institution, without according his approval on the ground that the request for approval was received in his office on 18th February 2008 and since this was less than six months’ period prior to the stipulated date of retirement of the petitioner it was against the stipulation contained in the Government Communication dated 30th November 2007 (supra). 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on carefully going through condition ‘Cha’ in para 2 of the aforesaid Government Communication dated 30th November 2007, we are absolutely clear in our minds that respondent no.2 acted wholly arbitrarily and illegally, based on his total misunderstanding of the content of the aforesaid clause by taking an untenable view that the request from the Managing Committee for accord of his approval should have reached him more than six months before the date of retirement of the petitioner. The aforesaid clause does not fix any time frame (of more than six months or otherwise) as far as the Managing Committee sending its request for approval is concerned, but it is confined only to the retiring teacher applying to the Managing Committee six months prior to the date of his retirement. All that it says, suggests and stipulates is that retiring teacher must apply to the Managing Committee six months or more prior to the date of his retirement. This clause does not fix any time frame within which the Managing Committee should send the Communication to the respondent no.4 for obtaining his approval. 6. Yes indeed, the Communication for obtaining approval must be sent much before the date of retirement, as much before as it is possible but insisting that it must be received by the competent Education Officer more than six months before the date of retirement of the retiring teacher amounts to reading into the condition something which does not find a place therein. 7. The respondent no. 4 by his misreading of the aforesaid clause acted illegally in returning the request for approval. He should have carefully understood the content of the aforesaid clause by carefully reading the same. This avoidable litigation is the result of careless reading of the aforesaid clause by respondent no.4. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 14.03.2008 passed by the respondent no.4-District Education Officer, U.S. Nagar is quashed and set aside with the directions to respondent no.4 to decide the request of the respondent no.5 Management Committee for according approval to the re-appointment of the petitioner latest by 27th May 2008 and to communicate his decision thereupon to the respondent no.5 Institution latest by 4PM, 28th May 2008. If respondent no.4 takes a decision refusing his approval, he shall record his reasons in support of his said decision by passing a detailed, comprehensive, speaking and reasoned order. 9. Because the petitioner has been driven to avoidable litigation unnecessarily, the petitioner is awarded costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), which shall be paid to him by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 within four weeks from today. It is entirely up to the respondents no. 1 to 3 to recover the costs amount from respondent no.4. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) Dated 22.05.2008 LSR / Shiv