Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Beer Singh on 28 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
28.08.2025
WPSS No. 1106 of 2025
With
WPSS No. 575 of 2025
WPSS No. 799 of 2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General
assisted by Mr. N.K. Papnoi and Mr. Narayan Dutt,
Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner in
WPSS No. 799 of 2025.
2. In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners are
claiming benefit of services rendered in the Educational
Institutions, where they were serving before
provincialization, for the purposes of seniority.
3. Petitioners contend that the issue is covered by
judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in
the case of State of Uttarakhand Vs. Beer Singh
Bhandari (Special Appeal No. 44 of 2010), in which, it
was held that employees of Basic Education Board,
U.P., who acquired status of State employees by virtue
of Section 58 of Uttarakhand Education Act, cannot be
denied benefit of past service.
4. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that
said judgment has no application to the facts of the
present case, as petitioners do not acquire status of
State employees because of some statutory provision,
but it was because the Institutions where they were
serving were decided to be taken over by State
Government.
5. Learned State Counsel relies upon a Government
Order dated 21.09.2006 which provides that upon
provincialization of aided schools, teachers serving in
such schools will be placed at the bottom of the
seniority list in the cadre of Government teachers.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners, then submits that
a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 833
of 2019, vide judgment dated 08.05.2024 has decided
similar controversy. Para 13 of the said judgment is
extracted below:-
"13. In our opinion, there is no difference in between both the
categories of employees serving in Basic Shiksha Parishad and in non-
government aided institution and one thing is similar that the
institution where both category of employees were serving were
provincilized; therefore, we do not find any error on the face of the
impugned judgment and the learned Single Judge rightly decided the
petition in the light of the judgment rendered by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court dated 23.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.
270 of 2009 'Beer Singh Bhandari vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Others' as well as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench dated
28.10.2014 in Special Appeal No. 417 of 2014 'State of Uttarakhand
vs. Rajendra Prasad Pant'."
7. Learned State Counsel, however, relies upon para
14 of judgment dated 24.04.2024, rendered by same
Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 425 of 2022, which
is extracted below:
"14. So far as second part of the judgment whereby the
directions have been issued that the service rendered by
respondents/petitioners in the aided institutions to be computed for
the purposes of seniority is concerned, we are not agreeable for this
since the Government Order whereby the institutions were
provincialized stipulates a condition that persons who submitted
their bonds to serve in the institution after provncialization they will
be kept in the bottom in the seniority list. This condition is not
challenged by the respondents/petitioners. There may be a reason in
not challenging the said condition, i.e., bond which the
respondents/petitioners have submitted. There is another aspect
which is required to be considered with regard to the directions of
the learned Single Judge for the purposes of computation of seniority
by computing the period rendered by the respondents/petitioners in
the aided institutions, since, there are other incumbents who were
already in the institutions which were already provincialized or in the
institutions run by the Government and if the period which these
respondents/writ petitioners were rendered in the aided institutions
to be taken into consideration for computing their seniority then
certainly those who were already serving in the provincialized
institutions their seniority would likely to be affected and that was
also one of the reason that there was a condition if the institutions is
provincialized then persons serving in the institutions will be kept
below in the seniority list for which bonds were asked to be furnished
and these respondents/writ petitioners voluntarily submitted their
bonds."
8. Since same Division Bench of this Court has taken
two different views in the matter of teachers of aided
schools, who acquired status of Government
employees because of provincialization of their
Institutions, therefore, Registry is directed to place
these matters before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for
constituting a Bench of appropriate strength, to resolve
the issue.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
28.08.2025
Mahinder/
