The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Regulation 2(1) regarding the appointment process for the post of Principal and the legal obligation of the Management to ensure regular appointment and initiate regular recruitment if the senior most lecturer is found to be unsuitable for the post of Principal.

JUDGMENT

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. - The petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 12.11.2020, passed by the Chief Education Officer, Dehradun, the respondent no. 3, whereby the Chief Education Officer has directed the Management of the Sri Guru Ram Rai Inter College to examine as to who is the senior most lecturer who would be eligible to be appointed on the post of Principal of the college. The petitioner has also challenged the advertisement issued bythe Management, dated 05.12.2020, whereby the Management has invited application for the post of Principal of the said college.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case that on 27.11.1990, the petitioner he was appointed as Assistant Lecturer, L.T. Grade under the General Category. He has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the management for the last twenty-six years. After having completed twenty-two years of satisfactory service as L.T. Grade Teacher, on 08.10.2013, the petitioner was promoted on the promotional pay scale. Subsequently, he was also promoted on the post of Lecturer Hindi vide order dated 05.04.2016. Due to the retirement of Mr. Sashi Prasahd Kukreti on 31.01.2020, the petitioner was appointed as the Principal on ad-hoc basis. Moreover, according to the petitioner, the Management recommended his case for appointment as a downgrade Principal to the respondent No. 3. However, by the impugned order dated 12.11.2020, the Management's recommendation was rejected. Instead, the Management was directed to examine as to who is the senior most lecturer available in the college for the purpose of appointing the said person as the downgrade Principal. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, Mr. Virendra Kumar Petwal happens to be the senior most Lecturer.

However, due to certain adverse entries which have been recorded against Mr. Virendra Kumar Petwal, the Management does not consider him to be eligible and suitable for the post of Principal. Lastly, after the order dated 12.11.2020 was passed, instead of continuing the petitioner as downgrade Principal, on 05.12.2020, the Management has issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Principal of the college. Hence the present writ petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Navnish Negi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following conditions before this Court: -

Firstly, that the petitioner happens to be the senior most Lecturer who is eligible for the post of Principal; secondly, according to Regulation 2(1) of the Uttarakhand Vidhalayi Shiksha Parishad (Sansodhan) Viniyam, 2017 ('the Regulation' for short), the senior most lecturer, who is found to be eligible and who has completed a minimum service of 22 years, is entitled to be appointed as a downgrade Principal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, although Mr. Virendra Kumar Petwal may be the senior most lecturer, but he is found not to be eligible for the post of Principal. Since the petitioner has already completed his service of twenty-six years, that too satisfactorily, it is the petitioner who is entitled to be appointed as the downgrade Principal of the college for a period of five years. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 was not justified in rejecting the recommendation made by the Management, and in directing the Management to examine as to who is the senior most Lecturer in the college. Moreover, the Management is unjustified in publishing the advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates to the post of Principal. Therefore, both the impugned order, and the advertisement deserve to be set aside by this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order, and the advertisement.

5. The position being taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly unjustified. For, even according to the petitioner Mr. Virendra Kumar Petwal happens to be senior most lecturer in