2026:UHC:919-DB S L. N o. D at e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/90/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Anil Anthwal, learned counsel for the petitioner (appeared through V.C.). 2. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in an un-aided educational institution in the year 2005. According to him, he was subsequently appointed as Principal in the same college through direct recruitment in 2013. The concerned institution was included in the grant-in-aid list in 2016. However, petitioner’s services were not absorbed on the post of Principal at that time, and he was ultimately absorbed as Principal of the concerned institution vide order dated 29.06.2019. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.06.2019 (annexure no.7) passed by respondent no.4 upto this extent of depriving the petitioner from his claim of payment of salary w.e.f. year 2016 and also depriving him from the benefits of past services rendered in Boxa Janjati Krishak Intermediate College. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.4 to sanction the payment of salary to the petitioner from year 2016 and also grant him benefits for his past services.” 5. Learned State Counsel submits that there is nothing 2026:UHC:919-DB to indicate in the writ petition that petitioner’s appointment on the post of Principal was approved by competent authority. He further submits that the relief claimed by petitioner is misconceived as petitioner has challenged the selfsame order by which he was given benefit of absorption on the post of Principal. 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 29.06.2019, it is mentioned that petitioner will not be entitled to any benefit for his past services, therefore, he had to challenge the same. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is permitted to approach the competent authority by making representation so that the competent authority may apply his mind and take a decision on merits. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to the Competent Authority within two weeks from today. If he makes such representation within stipulated time, decision thereupon shall be taken as per law within four months thereafter; untrammelled by the order dated 29.06.2019. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.02.2026 AK 2026:UHC:919-DB