[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2076/2025 on 1 December, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:10704
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/2076/2025
With
WPSS/2077/2025
WPSS/2080/2025
WPSS/2081/2025
WPSS/2082/2025
WPSS/2083/2025
WPSS/2084/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate with Mr.
Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Since common questions of law and fact
are involved in these petitions, therefore they
are heard together and are being decided by a
common judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 2076 of 2025
(SS) alone are being discussed and considered.
3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher in Government Primary School District
Udham Singh Nagar, in the year 2024. A notice
is issued to him on 04.11.2025, by District
Education Officer, asking him to show-cause as
to how he has obtained permanent
resident/domicile certificate from State of
Uttarakhand and State of U.P at the same time
and has pursued D.El.Ed course from an
institute situate in State of U.P. based on a
domicile certificate of State of U.P.
2025:UHC:10704
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
the authorities have predetermined the issue as
is apparent from the observation made by
Director, Elementary Education, in his letter
dated 16.01.2025, addressed to District
Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar.
5. Learned State Counsel is right in
submitting that writ petition is premature, as
only a notice has been issued to petitioner,
asking him to put forth his version.
6. Learned State Counsel further submits that
Government Order dated 18.02.2003, issued by
Secretary, General Administration, Department
of Government of U.P. (enclosed as Annexure-8
to the writ petition), deals with
domicile/ordinary residents and it provides in
Clause 3 that if a person or his parents are
permanent residents of a District or are
ordinarily residing in a District for last three
years, would be eligible for domicile/ordinary
resident certificate.
7. He submits that petitioner has not
impleaded State of U.P. as party which alone
can throw light on the subject and tell whether
there is any other Government Order governing
the field or whether the G.O. dated 18.02.2003
was superseded by some other Government
Order issued later.
8. Learned State Counsel submits that
2025:UHC:10704
ordinary resident certificate is as good as
permanent resident certificate and merely by
changing the name of the certificate, its effect
does not get changed.
9. While declining to interfere with the
matter at this stage, the writ petition is disposed
of by providing that District Education Officer
concerned will not be swayed solely by the
observation made in para 5 of the letter dated
16.01.2025, issued by Director, Elementary
Education and he shall examine whether
petitioner claimed that he or his parents are
residing permanently in State of Uttar Pradesh,
while applying for the certificate in State of U.P.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
01.12.2025
Mahinder/
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F,
cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.12.01 18:49:34 +05'30'
