Committee of Management v. State of Uttarakhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA SAH

WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 566 OF 2026

24TH AUGUST, 2026

Committee of Management, Rashtriya Inter College Rohalki, Bahadarabad, District Haridwar

…… Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others

…… Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, learned Standing Counsel for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 4

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1)

Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-Committee of Management and Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy

Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand. 2)

The present writ petition has been filed assailing an order dated 30.05.2026, passed by respondent No. 4, Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, whereby he has directed the Block Education Officer, Roorkee, Haridwar to conduct enquiry in respect of suspension of respondent No. 5, Principal of the Institution, by the petitioner-Committee of Management. 3) The petitioner-Committee of Management had suspended respondent No. 5, the Principal of the Institution, and respondent No. 6 Aman Saini, a Junior Assistant by separate orders passed on 01.04.2026. Respondent No. 6 Aman Saini, the Junior Assistant, challenged the suspension order passed against him by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2117 of 2026 and in the said writ petition, by an order dated 19.08.2026, the suspension order has been stayed. 4)

In respect of respondent No. 5, it appears that although the Chief Education Officer had directed the Block Education Officer to hold enquiry, but no order has been passed so far.

5)

Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chief Education Officer should have taken some decision in respect of approval / dis-approval of the suspension of respondent No. 5, the papers in regard to whom were forwarded to the District Education Officer on

10.04.2026.

In respect of respondent No. 6, he very fairly states that since this Court has stayed the suspension order, therefore, he is not pressing the writ petition and reserves right to avail other appropriate remedies. 6)

Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents states that the Chief Education Officer would take decision in respect of the approval sought to the suspension of respondent No. 5 within such time as may be directed by this Court. 7)

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Chief Education Officer (respondent No. 4 herein) to take decision in relation to the suspension of respondent No. 5 on basis of documents forwarded to him by the petitioner-Committee of Management on

10.04.2026, within a period of four weeks from the date A of communication of the instant order, along with entire set of documents. 8) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. _______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

_______________

SIDDHARTHA SAH, J.

thDt: 24 AUGUST, 2026 Negi - Digital y signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, HIMANS

2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5 757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FCHU NEGI 51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C 18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.08.25 12:43:25 +05'30'