SONAM SAINI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010087462020
2026:UHC:7861
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1031 of 2020
Sonam Saini -Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
with Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent No.5-
Committee of Management.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the
Respondent No.1-Secretary, Secondary Education, State of
Uttarakhand, Dehradun; order dated 03.09.2020 passed by
the Respondent No.4-Chief Education Officer, Almora and
order dated 05.09.2020 passed by respondent No.5-the
Committee of Management under the hand of Manager of
Inter College, Khirkhet.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner,
pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.08.2018, was
selected and given appointment vide appointment order dated
12-12-2018 on the post of Lecturer (Maths) in Inter College,
Khirket (hereinafter referred to as Institution). Petitioner
joined in the said Institution. Suddenly, the services of the
petitioner were terminated by the respondent No.5,
consequent to the order passed by the Chief Education
Officer, Almora and the Secretary of the Department, vide
order dated 05.09.2020. The reasons for terminating the
services of the petitioner, as reflected from the impugned
orders, are that the respondents found the selection improper
and not in accordance with the amendment incorporated in
the Uttarakhand School Education Regulations, 2009. In the
said order, it has been mentioned that advertisement which
1
UKHC010087462020
2026:UHC:7861
was issued on 08.03.2017, was not issued in accordance with
the amendment known as Uttarakhand School Education
Council (Amendment) Regulations, 2017.
3. Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order and judgment
dated 09.11.2017 in writ petition No. 528 of 2017, Girish
Chandra Pandey Vs. State Of Uttarakhand and others
,
has stated that the amendment of 2017 incorporated in the
Regulation of 2009 is prospective in nature and thus, not
retrospective.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
advertisement, pursuant to which the petitioner was given
appointment, was issued in 2018, which was strictly in
accordance with the amendment of 2017 incorporated in the
Regulation of 2009, and, therefore, there was no illegality in
the appointment of petitioner as Lecturer (Maths) in the
Institution.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that
before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioner at all and the order of terminating
his services was passed under the dictates of the Secretary,
Secondary Education and the Chief Education Officer,
Almora, which was followed by the termination order passed
by the respondent No.5-Committte of Management and thus,
all the orders suffer from illegality and cannot be sustained.
6. Per Contra, learned State Counsel submits that the
advertisement dated 08.03.2017 was cancelled. But, it is
admitted to the learned State Counsel that the petitioner was
selected under the Selection Process, which was held
pursuant to the advertisement issued on 22.08.2018. There is
no denial of the fact that the said advertisement was properly
issued and the selection was made in accordance with the
amended provisions of the Regulation of 2009.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 also does not
dispute the aforesaid fact and admitted that the order was
passed on the basis of the orders passed by the Secretary,
2
UKHC010087462020
2026:UHC:7861
Secondary Education as well as by the Chief Education
Officer, District Almora. He also fortified the fact that the
petitioner was selected pursuant to the advertisement issued
on 22.08.2018 and he has never been given any opportunity
of hearing before passing the termination order.
8. Having heard the rival submission of the learned
counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the
writ petition, this Court is of the view that the impugned
order passed by the Secretary, Secondary Education was only
in respect of the selection, which was held pursuant to the
advertisement issued on 08.03.2017 and not for any
subsequent advertisement i.e. 22.08.2018. It is also reflected
from the orders impugned, that the petitioner has never given
any opportunity of hearing by the respondent authority
before passing the termination order. In the opinion of this
Court, the termination order carries civic consequences and it
cannot be passed without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
9. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the Respondent
No.1-Secretary, Secondary Education, State of Uttarakhand,
Dehradun; order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the Respondent
No.4-Chief Education Officer, Almora and order dated
05.09.2020 passed by respondent No.5-the Committee of
Management, are hereby quashed.
10. However, the respondents are at liberty, if required, to
pass a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
11. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
31.08.2026
R.Bisht
3
UKHC010087462020
2026:UHC:7861
4