Harsh Vidya Mandir Pg College v. State of Uttarakhand

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

1 7 TH DECEMBER, 2 0 2 4

W r it Pet it ion No. 3 4 4 1 of 2 0 2 4 ( M/ S)

Harsh Vidya Mandir (PG) College and Another

……......Petitioners Ver su s

State of Uttarakhand and Another ………Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Saharia,

Advocate.

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. G.C. Kandpal,

Deputy Advocate General

with Mr. Suyash Pant,

Standing Counsel.

Hon 'ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a,J.

The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers: - "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 30.11.2024 bearing even no.4446 annexed as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the

petitioner's College to initiate the selection and recruitment process on the vacant posts, strictly as per the reservation roster approved by the State Government and also strictly as per the procedure provided under law.

(iii) Issue any suitable order or direction of any nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

(iv) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

2 .

The petitioner college had requested for permission to publish advertisement for filling up the posts vide its letter dated 23.11.2024 sent to the Secretary, Higher Education, the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 informed the petitioner college through impugned letter dated 30.11.2024 that the said posts, except the post of Assistant Professor (Botany & Economics), have been vacant for more than three years, hence, the vacant posts have automatically been abolished. Therefore, through impugned letter, the petitioner has been directed to submit a proposal as per letters dated 23.11.2024 to revive the said posts. 3 .

Heard Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.C. Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4 .

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate has requested to decide the present writ petition directing the respondent no.1

to decide the proposal of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, for which the petitioners shall submit its proposal before the respondent no.1 within a period of one week from today. 5 .

Mr. G.C. Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General has sought three weeks time to decide the proposal of the petitioners. 6 .

With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.1 that if the petitioners submit its proposal within one week from today, the respondent no.1 shall consider and decide the said proposal as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three weeks from the date of submission of the proposal along with certified copy of this order.

_ _ _ __ _ _ _

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Date : 17.12.2024 JKJ/ Pant.

PANKAJ KUMAR PANT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=9bb5448b4a92c65bab85a1384e98c8e23962296e78d4821a6ec01b408aa193c8 , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=4FA443614ABEBC1A2C417A645E31B2B4B9D897811D160D334C31AA4B A6D48D32, cn=PANKAJ KUMAR PANT Date: 2024.12.18 09:57:15 +05'30'