2025:UHC:8180 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition Service Single No. 981 of 2022 12 September, 2025 Rakesh Pokhriyal --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner was appointed as PTA teacher against a permanent vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in Inter College, Kotal Gaon, District Tehri Garhwal on 01.08.1998 and he is continuing as such ever since then. 2. It is the case of petitioner that he is being paid honorarium from public exchequer for the last several years and he was also given ad-hoc status on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) w.e.f. 03.02.2009, vide order dated 23.02.2019 passed by Chief Education Officer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 41 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 provides for giving ad-hoc appointment to PTA teachers and Section 40 thereof provides for regularisation of ad-hoc teachers. He has drawn 1 2025:UHC:8180 attention of this Court to a notification dated 17.11.2015, whereby the Uttarakhand School Education (Amendment) Act, 2015 was notified and sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 40 was substituted. By the said amendment, PTA teachers appointed against substantive vacancy on ad-hoc basis on or after 26.01.2005, but not after 30.06.2010, became eligible to be considered for regularisation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner was appointed as PTA teacher against a sanctioned post in 1998 and he was given ad-hoc status w.e.f. 03.02.2009, therefore, he is entitled to benefit of Section 40(1)(a)(iii) of the Uttarakhand School Education Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2992 of 2018 and another connected petition. He submits that since identical question was decided by Coordinate Bench, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be decided in terms of the judgment dated 15.10.2020 rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2992 of 2018 and other connected petition. 6. In the pre-lunch session, learned State Counsel was asked to examine the matter and get necessary instructions. In the post-lunch session, learned State Counsel made a statement that the issue involved in both the petitions is identical. 2 2025:UHC:8180 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 is quashed and the present writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 15.10.2020, rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2992 of 2018. The Chief Education Officer concerned shall re-consider the claim of petitioner for regularisation in the light of Section 40(1)(a)(iii) of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Dt: 12.09.2025 Navin 3 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df00 6da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875 643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.09.12 19:49:02 +05'30'