Uttarakhand High Court
Vinay Kumar And Others …Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 17 April, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (SS) No. 2292 of 2018
Vinay Kumar and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (SS) No. 172 of 2019
Laxman Singh Samant and Another ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
Presence:
1. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.S.
Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Additional Advocate General with
Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent no. 5
through V.C.
4. Mr. Saagar Mahra, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr.
Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for NCTE.
5. Mr. Tilak Ram, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr.
Shailendra Nauriyal and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the
private respondents.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)
1. On the previous date Mr. V.B.S. Negi pointed out that the
then Director at the verge of retirement offered appointment to
the 19 incumbents, who were infact the B.Ed. degree holders
and qualified CTET-I though as per the stand of the CBSE and
NCTE those candidates, who are the private respondents herein
and offered appointment were not eligible.
2. This fact that such an appointment has been offered to
those who were not eligible in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar have not
2
apprised to this court. The most surprising part is that the
candidates who have been offered appointment by the then
Director pursuant to the order dated 16.02.2026 their result was
kept in sealed envelope with this stipulation that the same will
be subject to the decision of the present writ petition i.e. WPSS
No. 2292 of 2018.
3. A petition was filed by those candidates whose result
were kept in a sealed cover i.e. WPSS No. 143 of 2026 and the
Coordinate Bench on 15.01.2026 passed the order, the operative
part of which is reproduced herein as under:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, it
is directed that, as an interim measure, during the pendency
of the present writ petition, the respondents shall
provisionally permit the Petitioner to appear in the six
months’ bridge course in terms of the order dated 14.11.2025
passed by respondent no. 3.It is further directed that such
provisional permission shall be subject to the final
outcome of the present writ petition.”
4. As it appears from the order passed by the Coordinate
Bench dated 15.01.2026 only this much interim direction was
issued that the respondents shall provisionally permit the
petitioner to appear in the six months bridge course, however,
instead of permitting them to go for bridge course 19 candidates
including the petitioner of WPSS No. 143 of 2026 were offered
appointment by the then Director at the verge of his retirement
on which this court take serious note on 08.04.2026, however, on
the request of learned Chief Standing Counsel the matter is
posted for today.
5. Today, Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Additional
Advocate General representing the State submits that in view of
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devesh
Sharma vs. Union of India and Others i.e. Civil Appeal No.
3
5068 of 2023 decided on 11.08.2023 the petitioners of the instant
petition cannot be offered appointment since they are the B.Ed.
degree holders. Such submissions were already advanced on the
previous date by Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned C.S.C. and in response
to this Mr. V.B.S. Negi submits that the petitioners are seeking
appointment pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year of
2016 and, therefore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India and Others have
no impact. Today instead of giving the response to the query as
raised in the previous order dated 08.04.2026 Mr. Ganesh
Kandpal reiterate the same argument, which was advanced on
the previous date but he could not justify the order of the then
Director dated 16.02.2026, whereby, 19 candidates were offered
appointment who were the B.Ed. degree holders.
6. This matter was heard on different stages at length and
the CBSE as well as the NCTE take the same stand that offering
appointment to the private respondents are illegal since they
were not eligible. This court gave ample opportunity to the
respondents to address on the issue but every time they
reiterate the same argument.
7. Now, an application has been moved by the petitioners
under Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w section 11/12
of Contempt of Courts Act impleading the Secretary and the
Director as the party respondents for initiating the contempt
proceedings against both the officials respondents and to
punish them for deliberate and intentional non-compliance of
the High Court’s order dated 16.12.2025.
8. After perusing this affidavit what this court has observed
that the then Director offered the appointment to the 19
candidates who were not eligible by order dated 16.02.2026,
4
therefore he should also be arrayed as one of the respondents.
Therefore, Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned senior counsel, is permitted
to implead the said official as one of the respondent during the
course of the day. The application moved under Article 215 of
the Constitution of India contains a copy of an office
memorandum dated 09.12.2021 issued by the Director
(Elementary Education). The concluding paragraph of which is
also being reproduced herein as under:
“उ�ानुसार प्र�गत यािचका म� गा० उ� �ायालय की एकल ख�पीठ �ारा
पा�रत िनण�य देनांक 23.10.2021 के समादर म� सम� िजला िश�ा अिधकारी,प्रार��क िश�ा उ�राख� को िनद�िशत िकया जाता है िक जनपदों के राजकीय
प्राथिमक िव�ालयों म� सहायक अ�ापक प्राथिमक – के �र� पदों की पूित� हेतुप्रकािशत िव���यों के सापे� वत�मान म� उ� चयन प्रिक्रय म� वष� जनवरी, 2012-
जून-2018 के म� के�ीय अ�ापक पात्रता परी�ा प्रथम (CTET-1) उ�ीण�प्रमाण पत्रों के आधार पर चयन प्रिक्रया म� स��िलत ऐसे अ�थ� िजनका चयन
बी०एड० वष� की �े�ता एवं शैि�क गुणांकों की श्रे�ता के आधार पर होता है, तोऐसे अ�िथ�यों के िनयु�� पत्र जारी न करते �ए इनका िलफाफा ब� िकया जाए
तथा ऐसे अ�िथ�यों का चयन यािचका सं0-2292/एस एस/2018 एवं ल��त अ�यािचकाओं म� पा�रत होने वाले अ��म िनण�याधीन रह�गी।”
9. As it appears from the aforesaid paragraph the selection
of CTET-I qualified candidates were kept in the sealed cover
subject to the decision of the present writ petition i.e. WPSS No.
2292 of 2018 and it also further reveals that the merit list was
prepared of all the candidates who were having CTET-I
certificate from January, 2012 to June, 2018 though since 2012
the B.Ed. degree holders were not permitted to participate in
CTET-I examination. It appears that the official respondents are
either misleading to this court or have not carefully gone
through with the order passed by the Division Bench, whereby,
the matter was remanded back to this court. The offering of
appointment to 19 candidate pursuant to the order of the
5
Director dated 16.02.2026 was also suppressed by the official
respondents. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal take a plea that the
appointments were offered to 19 candidates pursuant to the
interim direction of the Coordinate Bench dated 15.01.2026
passed in WPSS No. 143 of 2026 appears to be misconceived and
is outrightly rejected since the Coordinate Bench by its order
dated 15.01.2026 only direct to permit to appear in the bridge
course and there was no direction to offer the appointment. Mr.
Ganesh Kandpal submits that the bridge course starts after
offering the appointment and that is the reason that
appointments have been given. If it is so then in such an
eventuality the State should seek clarification but they have no
authority to misinterpret the High Court’s order. Furthermore,
why this fact was not brought to the knowledge of the
Coordinate Bench that the result has been kept in sealed cover
subject to the decision of outcome of the present writ petition.
10. In such view of the matter, a week’s time is granted to the
respondents to file their response to the application moved
under Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w section 11/12
of Contempt of Courts Act.
11. Put up this matter on 23.04.2026.
12. On the next date, the then Director, who passed the order
dated 16.02.2026 offering the appointment to the 19 candidates
at the verge of his retirement, shall also remain present in court.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
17.04.2026
PR
