Uttarakhand High Court
Triveni Chandra Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 15 July, 2013
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MCc Review Application No. 352 of 2013
In
Special Appeal No. 360 of 2012
Triveni Chandra Pandey .....Appellant/ Applicant.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. .......Respondents
Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, Advocate for the appellant / applicant.
Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Advocate General with Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Chief Standing Counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Coram : Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C. J.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In this Appeal, a judgment rendered on a writ petition challenging an advertisement was questioned. It was the contention in the writ petition that limiting people of a district to apply for being selected in a district level post is barred by the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge did not accept the said contention. When the matter came up before the Division Bench, the Division Bench did not also look into the said contention, instead applied the provisions of Article 350-A of the Constitution in addressing the issue. According to my view, Article 350-A of the Constitution had and has nothing to do with education to children belonging to linquistic majority group of a State. The same specifically applies to linquistic minority group of a State. There cannot be any dispute that people working in basic education at the pleasure of the Government be made holders of district level posts and not State level posts, but the State contrary to the mandate contained in Article 16 of the Constitution cannot prevent the people residing in other districts to compete for the posts available in the other districts in the primary education field. In the instant case appellant though had responded to the advertisement, he was not permitted to participate in the selection process, and as such the judgment rendered in Dhananjay Malik and others referred to in the judgment under review has no 2 application. I am, accordingly, of the view that the judgment is reviewable and, accordingly, I recall the same.
(Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 15.07.2013