WPSS/2868/2019 of MANOJ KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2868 of 2019

Manoj Kumar and others

...... Petitioners

State of Uttarakhand and others

..... Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Tiwari and Mr. Hemant Singh Mahra, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek appointment on the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers, Primary School, in district Haridwar.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case, briefly stated are as follows.

3. The respondents issued an advertisement on 09.07.2006 inviting applications for Vishistha B.T.C. Training 2006-07. The petitioners applied for it. The advertisement limited the eligibility to those candidates, who had secured B.Ed. degree after attending the regular

course. Subsequently, number of writ petitions were filed by the candidates having B.Ed. degree through correspondence mode. They also claimed their rights to be considered. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1148 of 2008, Anita Waliya v. State of Uttarakhand and others, and connected matters (“the first set of writ petitions”) were decided on 19.05.2010. The Court directed the respondents to initiate the process of filling the remaining seats from the candidates possessing B.Ed. degree through correspondence course in terms of the G.O. dated 12/12/2007 and advertisement dated 09/07/2006, within period of three months. This judgment and order dated 19.05.2010 was challenged in Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010, Manoj Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others. The Court modified the order under appeal and observed as hereunder:

“...To the extent as above, we modify the order under appeal and quash the part of the judgment and order under appeal where it has been mentioned that 60 seats are available for correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders. Inasmuch as, time for conselling pursuant to the said advertisement dated 17[th]November, 2008 has expired, we extend the same by six weeks from today directing counselling to take place of all those candidates eligible in terms of this order at the same venue. The date of counselling, however, shall be informed to the persons entitled to be counselled either by personal correspondence or by public notification to be published in newspaper.”order under appeal and quash the part of the judgment and order under appeal where it has been mentioned that 60 seats are available for correspondence B.Ed. Degree holders. Inasmuch as, time for conselling pursuant to the said advertisement dated 17[th]November, 2008 has expired, we extend the same by six weeks from today directing counselling to take place of all those candidates eligible in terms of this order at the same venue. The date of counselling, however, shall be informed to the persons entitled to be counselled either by personal correspondence or by public notification to be published in newspaper.”

4. Another special appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.05.2010 was also considered by the Court on 03.01.2011 (Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others). In para 2 of its judgment, the Court observed as hereunder:-

“2. Taking into account, the facts and circumstances of the present case, we also dispose of the present special appeal in the light of the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 125 of 2010. We, however, make it clear that there should not be any confusion of creation of 161 seats in the District of Haridwar available for B.Ed. degree holders who obtained the same through correspondence course. We make it further clear that the seats available for regular B.Ed. degree holders are required to be supplied in accordance with law governing the field and if the same have not been supplied, steps in relation thereto should also be taken simultaneously.”

5. These orders passed in Special Appeals were

challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 18097 of 2011. The process was still continuing. In the meanwhile, another advertisement was issued by the respondents on 14.02.2014 inviting applications from the candidates having B.Ed. degree through correspondence as well as regular B.Ed. degree holder for the purpose of making selection of special B.T.C. teachers. This advertisement was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 242 of 2015, Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and

others (“the second petition”). In the second petition, an assurance was given by the State Government that the judgment and order dated 03.01.2011 passed in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010 by this Court shall be followed. While quoting the assurance given on behalf of the State, the second petition was decided with the following observations:-

“Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Addl. C.S.C. submits that apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived. He, however, submits that impugned advertisement should be read and shall be read in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 03.11.2011 and no seat, over and above 161 seats, as directed by the Division Bench of this Court shall be filled up by the candidates having B.Ed. degree (correspondence) and only those remaining seats shall be filled up by B.Ed. degree holder (correspondence) which are vacant out of 161 seats and others shall be filled up by the candidates having regular B.Ed. degree.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present petition may be disposed of in the light of the statement made by Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Addl. C.S.C.

Order accordingly.

IA No. 959 of 2015 and CLMA No. 1656 of 2015 also stand disposed of accordingly.”

6. The order dated 26.02.2015 passed in the

second petition was further challenged before the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 86 of 2015, Sanjay Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others. The Special Appeal No. 86 of 2015 was dismissed 27.03.2015,

which was also unsuccessfully challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 13690 of 2015.

It appears that while the petitioners were

not offered appointment, they filed contempt petition being Contempt Petition No. 172 of 2015 for non-compliance of the Court’s order. The contempt petition was decided on 19.09.2019. In the contempt petition, on 19.09.2019, the following orders were passed:-

“Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Pradep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 242 of 2015 filed by the petitioners was disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vide order dated 26.02.2015. Relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below:-

“Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Addl. C.S.C. submits that apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived. He, however, submits that impugned advertisement should be read and shall be read in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 03.01.2011 and no seat, over and above 161 seats, as directed by the Division Bench of this Court shall be filled up by the candidates having B.Ed. degree (correspondence) and only those remaining seats shall be filled up by B.Ed. degree holder (correspondence) which are vacant out of 161 seats and others shall be filled up by the candidates having regular B.Ed. degree.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present petition may be disposed of in the light of the statement made by Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Addl. C.S.C.

Order accordingly.”

In this contempt application, applicants have alleged willful disobedience of the said order.

compliance affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4 (Dr. Bhupendra Kaur Aulakh, Secretary, Education) in which the stand taken is that the applicants were selected for undergoing Special B.T.C. Training Course and they have successfully completed the said training. Paragraph nos. 8 & 9 of the said compliance affidavit are extracted below:-

“7. That it is further submitted that vide order dated 07.07.2005, 11.07.2015 and 30.07.2015, the petitioners of writ petition 242/SS/2015 were selected for undergoing the Special B.T.C. training course and, accordingly, the petitioners have undergone training and have completed the same on.

9. That it is further submitted that the contention of the petitioners, as evident, is based on the inference drawn by the petitioners, while there was no such direction by this Hon’ble Court in regard to the appointment on the posts, which were to be filled up by the Department. The factum of having undergone the training stands admitted by the petitioners in Paragraph No. 2 of the objection filed by the petitioners in January, 2019, hence, it is evident that the answering respondent has not committed any contempt of this Hon’ble Court.”

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite the order passed by Writ Court, applicants have not been appointed as Assistant Teacher.

Since the Additional Chief Standing Counsel had given undertaking regarding admission to Special B.T.C. Course alone and there was no undertaking that upon successful completion of such training, applicants will also be appointed, therefore, in my opinion no contempt is made out.

Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. Contempt notices issued against respondents are hereby discharged.”

8. Thereafter, instant petition has been filed by the petitioners.

9. It is the case of the petitioners that in response to the advertisement dated 09.07.2006, they applied for Vishisht B.T.C. training. After the judgment in the special appeal, they were called for training, which they had already undergone, but they have not been offered appointment.

10. State has filed counter affidavit. On behalf of the State, it is averred that in the year 2009, the qualification for primary school teacher has been modified. Now TET is compulsory qualification for appointment to the post of primary school teacher, but the petitioners are not eligible; they have not qualified TET. It is also the case of the State that the petitioners have exceeded the age limit.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are not at fault. They are qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school based on advertisement dated 09.07.2006. They never did delay in

the matter. There was dispute between the candidates having regular B.Ed. degree and the candidates, who had obtained B.Ed. degree through correspondence mode. This litigation had already attained finality in the first set of writ petitions and Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010 and 125 of 2010, as well as by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 18097 of 2011. The Court had earmarked 161 posts to be filled up by such candidates, who had obtained their B.Ed. degree through correspondence mode. It is argued that instead of filling up the vacancy, the respondents issued another advertisement, which according to learned Senior Counsel compelled the petitioners to file the second writ petition, in which assurance was given by the State Government that the advertisement shall be subject to judgment dated 03.01.2011 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010, but it is argued, still the appointments have not been made. The petitioners were kept on waiting for it. They were called for the training. It, according to the learned Senior Counsel, compelled the petitioners to file contempt petition, but based on the plea taken by the respondents that they were never directed to appoint the petitioners, the contempt petition was closed. It is argued that this was the STAGE OF INERTIA. The respondents

did not move beyond that point. They should have offered appointment to the petitioners. The respondents cannot take shelter of the age and change in qualification post advertisement.

13. It is argued that the eligibility criteria has to be ascertained on the date when the advertisement was issued. The petitioners were eligible and within the age limit when they applied for the post in response to the advertisement dated 09.07.2006. Therefore, it is argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

14. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the case of Bishnu Biswas and others v. Union of India and others, (2014) 5 SCC 774 and Marripati Nagaraja and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2007) 11 SCC 522.

15. In the case of Bishnu Biswas (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the judgments in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 3 SCC 104 and K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512, and in para 8 observed as hereunder:

“8. This Court has considered the issue involved herein in great detail in Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi [(2010) 3 SCC 104 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 756 : AIR 2010 SC 3714] and held as under: (SCC p. 109, paras 13-15)

“13. In Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa [(1987) 4 SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 36 : (1987) 5 ATC 148] this Court considered the Orissa Judicial Service Rules which did not provide for prescribing the minimum cut-off marks in interview for the purpose of selection. This Court held that in absence of the enabling provision for fixation of minimum marks in interview would amount to amending the Rules itself. While deciding the said case, the Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments in B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana [1980 Supp SCC 524 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 343] , P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214] and Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] wherein it had been held that there was no ‘inherent jurisdiction’ of the Selection Committee/Authority to lay down such norms for selection in addition to the procedure prescribed by the Rules. Selection is to be made giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and if such power i.e. ‘inherent jurisdiction’ is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the Rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm.

14. Similarly, in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. [(2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] this Court held that selection criteria has to be adopted and declared at the time of commencement of the recruitment process. The rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over. The competent authority, if the statutory rules do not restrain, is fully competent to prescribe the minimum qualifying marks for written examination as well as for interview. But such prescription must be done at the time of initiation of selection process. Change of criteria of selection in the midst of selection process is not permissible.

15. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in case the statutory rules prescribe particular mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly. In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum benchmarks for written test as well as for viva voce.”

16. In the case of Marripati Nagaraja (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “It is now well-settled principle of law that the rules which would be applicable for selecting the candidates would be the one which were prevailing at the time of the notification. It is also equally well settled that the State may, subject to constitutional limitations, amend the rule with retrospective effect.”

17. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the petition is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Learned State Counsel raised the following points in his submission:

(i)The petitioners have not challenged the communication dated 25.04.2017, by which the State Government has rejected their candidature. communication dated 25.04.2017, by which the State Government has rejected their candidature.

(ii)The State Government is under no legal obligation to fill up all the advertised vacancy. In the instant case, the advertisement itself stipulates that the vacancy may increase or decrease. obligation to fill up all the advertised vacancy. In the instant case, the advertisement itself stipulates that the vacancy may increase or decrease.

(iii)The petition is bad for delay and laches. Post advertisement dated 09.07.2006, fresh advertisement dated 09.07.2006, fresh

advertisements were issued in the year 2009, 2010 and 2014, but the petitioners never

applied in response to such advertisements.

(iv)There is no vacancy against the advertisement dated 09.07.2006. advertisement dated 09.07.2006.

(v)This Court cannot direct appointment after 16 years of advertisement. 16 years of advertisement.

(vi)Post advertisement dated 09.07.2006, the qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school has been changed and TET is one of the essential qualifications for appointment of Assistant Teacher in primary school, which the petitioners do not possess. qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school has been changed and TET is one of the essential qualifications for appointment of Assistant Teacher in primary school, which the petitioners do not possess.

(vii)The petitioners are overage.

(viii)This Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not direct the State Government to relax the educational qualification as well as age in relation to the petitioners. did not direct the State Government to relax the educational qualification as well as age in relation to the petitioners.

(ix)The State Government never gave any undertaking that those candidates, who had undergone training shall necessarily be given appointment. undertaking that those candidates, who had undergone training shall necessarily be given appointment.

18. In support of his contentions, learned State Counsel has placed reliance on the principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Director of Horticulture, Odisha v. Pravat Kumar Dash and others, (2019) 8 SCC 294, S.S. Balu and another v. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 2 SCC 479 and Devendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2007) 9 SCC 491.

19. In the case of Parvat Kumar Das (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “Subsequently, the training was proposed to be held in ten selected departmental farms but there is no assurance in the said communication dated 4-7-1998 that candidates would be appointed. The appointment to the post of Gardener is required to be made in terms of the recruitment rules if any, applicable thereto or in terms of instructions issued under executive power of the State but the appointments cannot be made merely for the reason that candidate has undergone training.”

20. In the case of S.S. Balu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the law on the aspect of

vested right of selected candidate for appointment as well as delay and laches. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. person does not acquire legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed “TheState as an employer has right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up.”

21. On the question of delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Balu observed “It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity.”

22. In the case of Devendra Singh (supra), the controversy was with regard to special B.T.C. training course in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “The process of selection of the candidates for the said training and the arrangement of the training is required to be conducted in accordance with the guidelines, directions, conditions and restrictions incorporated thereunder. None of the appellants qualified themselves for undergoing the said training course

inasmuch as they were not selected as they were not found meritorious or overaged as the case may be. It is not demonstrated as to how the appellants were entitled for selection to undergo Special BTC Training Course, 2004. The validity of the policy decision dated 14-1-2004 is not impugned in these appeals.”

23. Multiple litigations have taken this case to this extent. The dispute is within very short compass i.e. whether the petitioners deserve to be appointed to the post for which they applied?

24. During the course of arguments, the Court wanted to know from the learned State Counsel as to which would be the date for determining the eligibility in terms of qualification as well as age in the cases of appointment? Whether it should be the date when the advertisement was issued or the date on which the appointment was offered?

25. Learned State Counsel would submit that if the advertisement is issued in consonance with the recruitment rules, the date for determining the eligibility as well the age shall be the date of advertisement.

26. In the instant case, it has not been stated by the respondents that the advertisement was not consistent with the rules. It is not the claim of the respondents.

27. The advertisement was issued on 09.07.2006. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were not eligible on the date when they applied in response to the advertisement. It is also not the case of the respondents that on the date when the petitioners responded to the advertisement dated 09.07.2006, they were not within the age limit prescribed for appointment. It has also not brought to the notice of the Court or it is also not the case of the respondents that post advertisement, any rules were amended by the State Government and such rules have been given any retrospective effect.

28. The law on appointment is well settled. It is one of the foundations of the service jurisprudence that the process of recruitment cannot be changed post advertisement, unless there are special circumstances,

as amendment in the rules or amendment in the Act with retrospective effect. Instant is not such case.

29. It establishes that the petitioners were eligible for their appointment as Assistant Teacher, Primary School when they applied in response to the advertisement dated 09.07.2006. If they have become subsequently overage, it does not disentitle them for appointment. If any qualification for the post has subsequently been changed, it also does not affect the case of the petitioners. Even otherwise, the State cannot remove such teachers, who have already been appointed based on advertisement dated 09.07.2006 and who did not possess the necessary TET qualification, which has subsequently been made an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School.

30. This is one aspect of the matter. In fact, in the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken this ground relating to age and qualification for non-appointment of the petitioners. It is true that the State is under no obligation to fill up the vacancies. It is right or privilege of the State Government. But, then it is also

settled law that such decision of the State Government is subject to judicial review.

31. In the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed this aspect and observed that the State does not have any licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. In paragraph 7 of the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

“7. It is not correct to say that if number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] , or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] .”

(emphasis supplied)

32. The State has to tell as to why they are not filling up the vacancies. It may not be an arbitrary action. The State cannot abort one selection process and issue another advertisement for filling up the same vacancy and if it is being done, reasons are to be shown for judicial review.

33. Admittedly, in the year 2015, an advertisement was issued by the respondents for filling up the vacancies of Assistant Teacher, Primary School. It is at that stage the second petition i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 242 of 2015 was filed by the petitioners. Prior to that, it may be noted that, when in the first set of writ petitions, special appeals were preferred, in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, this Court on 03.01.2011 observed as hereunder:

“We make it further clear that the seats available for regular B.Ed. degree holders are required to be supplied in accordance with law governing the field and if the same have not been supplied, steps in relation thereto should also be taken simultaneously.”

34. The respondents did not conclude the process initiated by virtue of advertisement dated 09.07.2006. They issued another advertisement on 14.02.2015 and

when in the second petition i.e. WP (S/S) No. 242 of 2015 this issue was raised, on behalf of the State Government an assurance was given to the Court that the advertisement dated 14.02.2015 shall be read in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2010 on 03.01.2011 and no seats over and above 161 seats as directed by this Court shall be filled up by the candidates having B.Ed. degree (correspondence) and only those remaining seats shall be fill up by B.Ed. degree (correspondence), which are vacant out of 161 seats, and other seats shall be filled up by the candidates, who are having B.Ed. degree through regular mode.

35. The process did not move. In fact, on it there is no averment on behalf of the respondents as to why the petitioners were not appointed post training? An argument has been raised that the State has never given any undertaking that after training, appointment shall be offered.

36. On behalf of the petitioners, reference has been made to the Government Order dated 13.06.2006, which provides for the process for selection of Vishista B.T.C. At

Column No. 8, it provides for the procedure for counselling and preparation of merit list. Column No. 11 provides for training programme and Column No. 12 provides that successful candidates shall be appointed on the vacant posts.

37. In very strange manner, on behalf of the State, in the contempt petition, affidavit was filed that although the petitioners have undergone training and completed it, but there has been no direction of the Court for their appointment. The question is why had they undergone training? They appeared for counselling. They were selected candidates. They were sent for training, but never offered appointment. As stated, there is no answer to it as to why they are not appointed, except the issue with regard to the qualification and age, which has no basis. Because, as stated, on the date of advertisement, the petitioners were qualified and within the prescribed age limit for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School. It may also be noted that when the second petition was decided by this Court on 26.02.2015, by the Government by order dated 22.06.2015 (Annexure No. 25 to the writ petition) had directed the Director of the Basic Education that steps be taken to fill up the vacant

posts and to inform the Court. Steps were not taken to fill up the posts.

38. The petitioners were allowed to undergo training. They were paid stipends. They were given certificates for their successful training. It abundantly makes clear that the decision of the State Government for not offering appointment to the petitioners is totally arbitrary. It has no basis at all.

39. An argument has been advanced that the petition is bad for delay and laches. This argument has no legs to stand on. The petitioners did not delay anything. They had been pursuing the matter. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, in fact, SPA NO. 162 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners when the process for appointment was opened for such B.Ed. degree holder, who had obtained such degree through correspondence mode. When the appointment was not offered, they filed second writ petition i.e. WP (S/S) No. 242 of 2015, which was decided on 26.02.2015 on the assurance of the State Government. But, still when the petitioners were not appointed, they filed contempt petition and the contempt petition was closed on 19.09.2019 on the

ground that there was no direction of the Court for offering appointment to the petitioners.

40. As stated, the State has also no answer as to why appointment was not offered to the petitioners. The only objection taken in the counter affidavit is with regard to age and qualification, which is not tenable in the eyes of law.

41. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

42. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointments to the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School in district Haridwar. It shall be done within period of three months from today.

Avneet/

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

28.04.2022