2025:UHC:5401-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB No.263 of 2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Gulshan Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for respondent no.4. 4. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in a Government-aided Intermediate College on 08.01.2007. Vacancy on the post of Principal in the said College occurred on 01.04.2014. Petitioner was given officiating charge as Principal w.e.f. 01.04.2014. 5. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the Government Order dated 28.10.2020 issued by Secretary, Secondary Education. The said Government Order provides that in case eligible teacher is not available in the Institution on the date of occurrence of vacancy on the post of Principal, then such vacancy shall be filled by direct recruitment and advertisement inviting applications may be issued. 6. Petitioner submits that the said Government Order is arbitrary and illegal and eligibility has to be seen, not on the date of occurrence of vacancy, but on the date when charge as Officiating Principal is given. 7. Learned State Counsel, per contra, submits that as per the Scheme of Uttarakhand School 2025:UHC:5401-DB Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, vacancy on the post of Principal has ordinarily to be filled by direct recruitment and promotion has to be made only when a senior- most teacher, who possesses all eligibility conditions on the date of occurrence of vacancy is available, for promotion. 8. He further submits that on 01.04.2014 when the post of Principal fell vacant, petitioner was not the senior-most teacher but one Mrs. Anjana was senior-most Lecturer, however, she expressed inability to officiate as Principal, therefore, the charge of Principal was given to the petitioner. 9. Learned State Counsel has referred to a judgment dated 09.06.2025 rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.371 of 2020. He submits that in that judgment, this Court has dealt with the validity of Government Order, impugned in this writ petition. 10. Upon perusal of judgment dated 09.06.2025 rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 371 of 2020, we find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. 11. The facts in that writ petition were identical to the one involved in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is also decided in terms of judgment dated 09.06.2025 rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.371 of 2020. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.06.2025 25.06.2025 Rajni RAJINI GUSAIN Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac37 01a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC8 0D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878B D8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.06.25 22:44:50 -07'00'