Ashish Dev Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

This case has had a checkered history. The petitioner, the senior-most lecturer in the respondent-College, was entitled, in terms of the Uttarakhand School Education Council Regulations, 2009, to be considered for appointment as a down-grade Principal on completion of ten years of service in the Selection Grade.

On the ground that he was not promoted to the post of down-grade Principal in the Institution, he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 115 of 2019. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 115 of 2019, by its order dated 25.03.2019, directing the third respondent to consider the recommendations of the Committee of Management, that the petitioner be promoted as a down-grade Principal, in accordance with law, take an appropriate decision, and communicate its decision within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

By the impugned order dated 18.06.2019, the third respondent, relying on the earlier judgment of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2211 of 2016 dated 25.04.2018, rejected the petitioner's claim for grant of approval, to the recommendations of the Committee of Management, for the petitioner to be promoted as a down-grade Principal.

Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that this Court, in its order in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 270 of 2019 dated 02.07.2019, has held that the judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2211 of 2016 dated 25.04.2018 did not constitute good law; and, since the third respondent had relied on a judgment which was not good law, in rejecting the petitioner's claim to be appointed as a down-grade Principal, the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside.

In the order passed by us in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 270 of 2019 dated 02.07.2019, we had observed that the learned Single Judge, in his judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2211 of 2016 dated 25.04.2018, had not examined the scope and purport of Section 36(2) of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act'), and had proceeded on the premise that Section 36(2) of the Act required the post, of the Head of the Institution, to be filled up only by way of direct recruitment; the order in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2211 of 2016 dated 25.04.2018, wherein the views expressed were without analyzing the scope and ambit of Section 36(2) of the Act, was an order passed sub-silentio; and the law declared by the learned Single Judge, in his judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2211 of 2016 dated 25.04.2018, did not constitute good law, and had no binding effect.

In the light of the order passed by us in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 270 of 2019 dated 02.07.2019, the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2211 of 2016 dated 25.04.2018, did not constitute good law, and had no binding effect.

Since the impugned order relies on the judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2211 of 2016 dated 25.04.2018, which the Division Bench of this Court has held not to constitute good law, the said order must be, and is accordingly, set aside. The third-respondent shall examine the petitioner's entitlement to be promoted as a down-grade Principal in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 270 of 2019 dated 02.07.2019, with utmost expedition; and, in any event, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.