2026:UHC:2838-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/225/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, through video conferencing. 5. Petitioners are teachers in State Institute of Hotel Management at New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. They are aggrieved by order dated 10.04.2026, issued by Department of Tourism and Religious Affairs, Uttarakhand, whereby one Mr. Yashpal Singh Negi was permitted to join duties as Director, State Institute of Hotel Management, subject to the condition that he would withdraw the writ petition, filed by him, against his termination from service. 6. It is contended that Division Bench of this Court had granted interim order in favour of Mr. Yashpal Singh Negi, in a writ petition, in which, he had challenged his termination, however, State went in appeal and Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the interim order passed in favour of Mr. Yashpal Singh Negi and 2026:UHC:2838-DB remitted the matter back to the High Court for decision on the writ petition, therefore, State Government could not have reinstated Mr. Yashpal Singh Negi, in service. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that the writ petition is ill-advised and petitioners do not have any locus standi. He points out that petitioners are serving on contract, though against teaching posts, and they cannot question the decision taken by the State Government to reinstate an employee, whose services were earlier terminated. 8. We find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. 9. Law is well settled that in service matters, Public Interest Litigation is not permissible. Even though the writ petition is not styled as PIL, however, the relief sought is in the nature of PIL, as they don’t have any locus standi to maintain this petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Siddhartha Sah, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 20.04.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a13 1bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D 653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.20 19:13:28 +05'30'