[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2157/2025 on 18 December, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:11329
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS 2157/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel,
for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate,
for the respondent no. 3.
(2) According to petitioner, he was
appointed as PTA Teacher against a sanctioned
vacant post of Assistant Teacher, LT Grade
(Hindi) in a government aided institution,
namely, Inter College, Quarali, District
Bageshwar w.e.f. 5.7.2008. Petitioner's claim for
ad hoc status and regularisation has been
rejected by the Chief Education Officer,
Bageshwar vide order dated 14.7.2025 on the
ground that at the time of petitioner's
appointment, there was no vacancy available on
a sanctioned post and he was appointed without
there being a vacancy.
(3) Learned State Counsel as well as
learned Counsel appearing for Principal of the
concerned college submit that services of the
petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 19.5.2012 and
thereafter he never served in the institution.
(4) Perusal of the record reveals that
petitioner earlier filed WPSS No. 1292 of 2012
challenging the termination order passed on
19.5.2012. The said writ petition was dismissed
with a direction to the authorities to notify the
existing vacancies on the post of Assistant
Teacher to the District Education Officer and the
education authorities were directed to hold
regular selection against such vacancies.
However, in appeal, the said judgment was set
aside and it was provided that petitioner shall be
entitled to benefit of provisions contained in
Section 40 and 41 of Uttarakhand School
Education Act, 2006, provided he is appointed as
2025:UHC:11329
PTA Teacher against a sanctioned vacant post
before the cut-off date fixed by the State
Government and further that he is being paid
remuneration as ad hoc teacher from public
exchequer.
(5) Claim of the petitioner for benefit of
Section 40 and 41 of Uttarakhand School
Education Act was considered and rejected by
the Chief Education Officer, Bageshwar vide
order dated 14.7.2025 on the ground that there
was no vacancy available on the date when
petitioner was appointed as PTA Teacher. For
challenging the decision taken by the Chief
Education Officer and in support of his
contention that he was appointed on 5.7.2008
against a sanctioned post, which had fallen
vacant on account of retirement of one Mr.
Janardan Kandpal, who was serving as Assistant
Teacher, Sanskrit, petitioner relies upon a
document enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ
petition.
(6) As per the own showing of the
petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant
Teacher, Hindi. Thus the stand taken by District
Education Officer in the impugned order cannot
be said to be incorrect, as petitioner claims to
have been appointed against a post different
from one held by Janardan Kandpal. It is also a
fact that petitioner was never paid honorarium
from public exchequer and whatever
remuneration was paid to him by the
Management was from its own sources. Since
petitioner's case is not covered by Section 40
and 41 of Uttarakhand School Education Act,
therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit of the
observation made by Division Bench of this
Court in Special Appeal No. 336 of 2016. Thus
there is no scope for interference. Writ petition
fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
18.12.2025
Pr
PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.12.18 18:02:05 +05'30'
2025:UHC:11329
