JUDGMENT

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

Heard Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to approve appointment of the petitioner in the post of Principal, Inter-college, Kanadakhal Langoor by approving the Management Committee's proposal dated 28.09.2018 in compliance with the amended second proviso to Rule (2)(1) of the Uttarakhand School Education Council Regulations, 2009, as amended on 25.04.2018.

3. The petitioner had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 79 of 2019, wherein he had sought a direction to the respondents to issue a letter of approval/deemed approval of the Management Committee's proposal dated 28.09.2018 in compliance with Chapter 2(2)(d) of the Uttarakhand School Education Council Regulations, 2009, as amended by the Regulations dated 25.04.2018. A Division Bench of this Court, after taking note of the contentions, held that they were not inclined to express any opinion as to whether the petitioner must be deemed to have been appointed as a Principal, merely because the proposal made by the Committee of Management, for his appointment as a Principal, was not rejected within one month of its receipt by the Additional Director, more so as the writ petition was being disposed of, with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, at the stage of admission. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Additional Director, School Education to pass orders on the proposal submitted by the Committee of Management, for appointment of the petitioner as the Principal of the Inter-College Kandakhal (Langoor), Pauri Garhwal, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

4. The petitioner made a representation to the Additional Director, School Education who, by Office Memorandum dated 24.04.2019, disposed of the petitioner's representation holding that promotion of the applicant to the post of downgrade Principal was not possible in the light of the High Court order, and the provisions of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 (for short the “Act). The Additional Director, School Education took note of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2211 of 2016 dated 25.04.2018, and observed that the High Court had clarified, in the said judgment, that the selection procedure, provided for the post of Principal in the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, and arrangement of downgrade principal provided through amendment dated 18.10.2011 in the 2009 Regulations, were contradictory to each other; and the Court gave primacy to the 2006 Act over the amendment to the 2009 Regulations, it had quashed the Regulations, and had suggested to the Government to carry out appropriate amendment in tune with Section 36(2) of the original Act, which was in regard to direct recruitment of Principal.

5. The third respondent further held that, while the High Court had quashed the amendment dated 18.10.2011, the applicant had requested for promotion to the post of downgrade Principal on the basis of the second amendment, to the 2009 Regulations, by the notification dated 25.04.2018; the notification dated 25.04.2018 had been issued, like the Government notification dated 18.10.2011, without proper amendment in the original Act of 2006; and, in the light of the aforesaid arrangements, promotion of the applicant to the post of downgrade Principal was not possible in the light of the High Court order.

6. In his order, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2211 of 2016 dated 25.04.2018, the learned Single Judge took note of the provisions of Sections 36(2) and 39 of the Act which empowers the State Government to frame Regulations for determining