SPA/245/2021 of BEENA RANA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

SPECIAL APPEAL NO.245 OF 2021

9[th] AUGUST, 2021

Between:

Smt. Beena Rana

and

State of Uttarakhand and others.

.......Appellant

…....Respondents

Counsel for appellant

the : Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma)

This special appeal has been filed against

the order dated 15.06.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 538 of 2021, “Smt. Beena Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and others”, whereby the learned Single Judge is not inclined to grant the stay order in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner.

2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that an advertisement was published by the District Program

Officer, Child Development, Uttarkashi, the respondent no.3, for the appointment of Mini Karyakarti in Mini Aganwadi Centre in Village Kapola, District Uttarkashi. The appellant as well as one Km. Deepika had applied for the aforesaid post. Km. Deepika was not eligible to be appointed to the said post. However, Smt. Deepika was wrongly selected. Therefore, the appellant filed writ petition. Thereafter, the income certificate of Km. Deepika was cancelled. She filed writ petition. Both these writ petitions were decided by common judgment. Km. Deepika filed two special appeals. Since the order of cancellation of income certificate was passed without given an opportunity of hearing, therefore, the learned Co-ordinate Bench directed the respondent therein, to offer an appointment to Km. Deepika to the post of Mini Aganwadi Karyakarti. The appellant had filed review application in the special appeal. Thereupon, the Co-ordinate Bench modified the order and directed the appointing authority to take decision, based on the report of the Tehsildar. The learned Co-ordinate Bench directed that depending upon the outcome of the decision, either the appellant shall be continued as Mini Aganwadi Karyakarti or

the review applicant (appellant herein) shall be appointed to the said post. The services of Km. Deepika were terminated on 23.07.2019. Thereafter, the appellant should be considered, but, the Project Officer, Child Development, Naugaon, Uttarkashi, respondent no.4, passed an order dated 22.01.2020 (impugned in the writ petition), by which, on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar that the appellant was not having the residential certificate as per law, the said post has been declared vacant. Therefore, the appellant filed the writ petition no.538 of 2021 (S/S) with the following reliefs:-

(i) writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.01.2020. 22.01.2020.

(ii) writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.3 and 4 to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner to the post of Mini Aaganwadi Karyakarti.

3. The appellant-writ petitioner filed interim relief application with her writ petition praying to stay the impugned order dated 22.01.2020, and the respondent nos.3 and 4 be directed to issue an order

of appointment in her favour to the post of Mini Aganwadi Karyakarti with all consequential benefits.

4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge rejected the stay application of the appellant-writ petitioner and observed, “ Considering the factual backdrop of the case, as the controversy entails the selection process of Mini Aganwadi Karyakarti, which pertains to the years 2013-14, this is the third phase of litigation, which has been agitated now by way of present Writ Petition, whereby the petitioner’s claim for appointment as Mini Aganwadi Karyakarti was rejected by the order dated 22[nd] January, 2020, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

The foundation of the Writ Petition is based upon the revalidation certificate, which has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 17[th] August, 2020, i.e. post passing of the impugned order. Hence, that cannot be foundation for the purposes of challenging the order of rejection of 22[nd] January, 2020, as of now.

The respondents may file their counter affidavit.

As far as the Stay Application is concerned, I am of the view that this is not fit case in which stay could be granted.”

5. Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, the learned counsel for the appellant through video conferencing and perused the record.

6. Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the respondent no.4 was wrong to hold that the appellant did not have the permanent resident certificate as per rules, and the appellant was wrongly denied for the appointment to the post of Mini Aganwadi Karyakarti. Therefore, the respondents should be directed to appoint the appellant to the said post.

7. This Court asked specific question to Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate, can the Court direct to appoint person on any public post? It could not be answered by him.

8. In the present matter, the final relief and the interim relief are the same. An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief. It is well settled that by way of interim relief

final relief cannot be granted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been emphasizing that the Court while dealing with the case at an interim stage cannot grant relief which amounts to final relief (State of Rajasthan and others vs. Swaika Properties and another, [AIR 1985 SC 1289]; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and others vs. Prem Chand Premi and another, [(2005) 13 SCC 505].

9. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal to interfere in the impugned order dated 15.06.2021. Consequently, the special appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

_____________________________

RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.

___________________

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt:9[th] August, 2021 Mamta/PantDt:9[th] August, 2021 Mamta/Pant