UKHC010064902025 2026:UHC:6668-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No. 211 of 2025 31 July, 2026 Annpurna Nautiyal --Petitioner Versus Director School Education and Others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence: Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral) Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Petitioner is serving as Lecturer in a government aided Intermediate College at Dehradun. She has challenged promotion of respondent No.5 as Downgrade Principal by contending that she is senior to respondent No.5, therefore, she should be promoted as Downgrade Principal. 2. Learned State Counsel however submits that respondent No.5 is older in age to petitioner, therefore, she is senior as both petitioner and respondent No.5 were appointed on the same date. He relies upon Regulation 3(1) of Chapter-2 of the regulations framed under Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006. The relevant regulation is quoted hereinbelow:- “3-(1). izR;sd laLFkk dh izcU/k lfefr fuEufyf[kr micU/kksa ds vuqlkj v/;kidksa dh T;s’Brk lwph rS;kj djk;sxh&& ¼d½ izR;sd Js.kh ds v/;kidksa dh] tks fdlh ekSfyd in ij LFkk;h ;k vLFkk;h gksa] T;s’Brk lwph i`Fkd&i`Fkd rS;kj dh tk;xhA ¼[k½ fdlh Js.kh esa v/;kidksa dh T;s’Brk ml Js.kh esa mudh ekSfyd fu;qfDr ds vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr dh tk;xhA ;fn ,d gh fnukad dks nks ;k nks ls vf/kd v/;kid bl izdkj fu;qDr fd, x, Fks] rks T;s’Brk vk;q ds vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr dh tk;sxhA UKHC010064902025 2026:UHC:6668-DB 2 ¼[k[k½& tgka fdlh Js.kh esa dke djus okys nks ;k vf/kd v/;kid ,d gh fnukad dks vxyh mPprj Js.kh esa inksUur fd, tk;sa rks mudh ikjLifjd T;s’Brk mudh lsok dh vof/k ds vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr dh tk;sxh] ftldh x.kuk ml Js.kh esa] ftlls inksUufr dh tk;] mudh ekSfyd fu;qfDr ds fnukad ls dh tk;sxh% izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ;fn ,slh lsok dh vof/k leku gks rks T;s’Brk vk;q ds vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr dh tk;sxhA ¼x½ lsok dky dh vof/k pkgs dqN Hkh gks] mPprj Js.kh ds v/;kid dks fuEurj Js.kh ds v/;kid ls T;s’B le>k tk;xkA ¼?k½ ;fn dksbZ v/;kid tks fuyfEcr fd;k x;k gks vius ewy in ij cgky dj fn;k tk; rks Js.kh esa mldh ewy T;s’Brk ij dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+sxkA ¼³½ v/;kid dh T;s’Brk ds lEcU/k esa izR;sd fookn izcU/k lfefr dks fufnZ’V fd;k tk;sxk tks fofu”p; ds dkj.k nsrs gq, mldk fofu”p; djsxhA ¼p½ mi[k.M ¼³½ ds v/khu izcU/k lfefr ds fofu”p; ls O;fFkr dksbZ v/;kid ,slk fofu”p; ,sls v/;kid dks lwfpr fd, tkus ds fnukad ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj lacaf/kr e.Myh; vij f”k{kk funs”kd dks vihy dj ldrk gS] vkSj vihy ij lacaf/kr Ik{kksa dks lquokbZ dk volj nsus ds mijkUr e.Myh; vij f”k{kk funs”kd viuk fu.kZ; dkj.kksa lfgr nsxk] tks vfUre gksxk vkSj izcU/k lfefr }kjk dk;kZfUor fd;k tk;sxkA ¼N½ ;fn ,d xzsM esa dk;Zjr nks ;k vf/kd v/;kid fdlh ,d gh frfFk ij inksUur fd, tk;sa rks mudh T;s’Brk dk vk/kkj ml xzsM dk lsokdky gksxk ftlesa os dk;Zjr Fks] ijUrq ;fn lsok&dky cjkcj gS rks inksUufr dh n”kk esa vk;q ds vk/kkj ij T;s’Brk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA" 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn our attention to the Agenda No.5 of the minutes of Management Committee Meeting held on 21.02.2022 for contending that petitioner is at S.No.1 in order of seniority amongst Lecturers serving in the college, but, due to pendency of disciplinary enquiry, her claim was not considered. 4. Learned State Counsel has drawn our attention to the discussion on Agenda No.4 in the same meeting, which indicates that respondent No.5 is the senior most Lecturer in the College. In that meeting, the Management Committee considered the issue raised by petitioner and resolved that since respondent No.5 is the senior most Lecturer, therefore, her promotion as Downgrade Principal is in order. UKHC010064902025 2026:UHC:6668-DB 3 5. Since, petitioner and respondent No.5 were appointed as Lecturer on the same day and respondent No.5 is older in age, therefore, as per the regulations, respondent No.5 is senior to petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he joined service two days later. Petitioner has not enclosed any document to support her claim that she is senior. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 7. Pending applications also stand disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 31.07.2026 PN/- PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38 331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81F AE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC , cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2026.08.03 18:40:12 +05'30'