Uttarakhand High Court
Prem Lata Baudai And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 July, 2026
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 15.06.2026
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 07.07.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B) No.362 of 2022
Prem Lata Baudai and Others ----Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/B) No.51 of 2023
State of Uttarakhand ----Petitioner
Versus
Prem Lata Baudai & Others ----Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No.69 of 2023
State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Petitioners
Versus
Prem Lata Baudai & Others ----Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No.475 of 2023
State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Petitioners
Versus
Ravindra Kumar Pal and Others ----Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No.476 of 2023
State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Petitioners
Versus
Navind Chandra Mathpal and Others ----Respondents
1
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
Writ Petition (S/B) No.477 of 2023
State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Petitioners
Versus
Laxman Singh Khati and Others ----Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No.479 of 2023
State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Petitioners
Versus
Rajendra Prasad Kulashri and Others ----Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No.481 of 2023
State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Petitioners
Versus
Jeevan Singh Dhami and Others ----Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No.482 of 2023
State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Petitioners
Versus
Vinod Kumar Joshi ----Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPSB No.362/2022
Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand
Mr. Kailash Chandra Tewari, learned counsel for respondent nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 50, 52, 53 in WPSB
no.362/2022 and for respondent no.12 in WPSB No.51/2023 and for respondent
nos.12, 78 in WPSB No.69/2023
Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the caveator in WPSB No.362/2022 and for
respondents in WPSB no.477/2023 and 481/2023
Ms. Devika Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.38 in WPSB No.362/2022
Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, learned counsel for respondents in WPSB No.476/2023.
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
1. Since common questions of law and fact are
involved in this batch of writ petitions, therefore they were
2
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
heard together and are being decided by a common
judgment.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have
assailed the judgment and order dated 21.04.2022 passed
by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter to be
referred as ‘The Tribunal’). By the impugned order, the
Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and set aside the order
dated 13.07.2021 passed by the Secretary, Education, by
which the claim of adhoc teachers appointed as Lecturers
and Assistant Teachers (LT Grade) for grant of seniority
w.e.f. 01.10.1990 was rejected. The Tribunal further
directed the State Government to consider the issue of
fixation of inter-se seniority of the Lecturers and Assistant
Teachers (LT Grade) afresh in view of the judgment passed
in the case of Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal.
3. The case has a chequered history. Mr. Bhuwan
Chandra Kandpal, an Assistant Teacher (English) in LT
Grade, who was appointed on ad hoc basis, vide order
dated 04.09.1990, claimed the benefit of a Government
Order dated 21.11.1995 and contended that though his
services were regularized on 31.12.1999, however, in view
of G.O. dated 21.11.1995, his services were liable to be
regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1990. A writ petition was filed by
3
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal being WPSB No.162/2002
seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to
consider his services regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1990. It
appears that during the pendency of said writ petition, the
representation preferred by him for the said relief was
rejected on 17.01.2003 and the learned Single Judge, vide
order dated 28.10.2004, quashed the said order also and
issued a writ of mandamus directing that the services of
Bhuwan Chandra Kanpdal be treated to have been
regularized in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 01.10.1990. The State
Government was further directed to consider his case for
promotion in the Lecturer Grade. The learned Single Judge
considered the G.O. dated 21.11.1995 and held in paras 5
to 9 as under:-
“5) The short question for consideration before this Court is
whether, the petitioner was wrongly denied his seniority by not
treating his regularization in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 01.10.1990.
Further it is to be seen if his representation is wrongly rejected
vied order dated 17.01.2003 by the respondents.
6) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher (English) in L.T. Grade vide order dated 04.09.1990
(copy Annexure-1 to the writ petition). It is also admitted that
he joined his duties in pursuance of said orders on 19.09.1990.
It is also admitted between parties that in compliance of
Government Order dated 21.11.1995 (copy annexure-2 to the
writ petition), services of the petitioner were regularized on
31.12.1999. The dispute relates to the fact as to from which
date the petitioner’s services stood regularized and from which
date he is entitled to his seniority. before further discussions, it
is pertinent to mention here the relevant paras of the
4
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
Government Order No. 3179/15-2-95-27 (40)/93 dated
21.11.1995. Para 1 and Para 4 of said Government Orders
reads as under: 1) mRrjk[k.M {ks= ds lHkh ,sls izoDrk@ ,y0 Vh0 xzsM f’k{kdksa
dks tks jktdh; f’k{k.k laLFkkvksa esa rnFkZ :Ik ls fnukad 1 vDVwcj 90 ls iwoZ fu;qDr fd;s
x;s gS] dks ,rn~)kjk fofu;fer fd;k tkrk gSA————————————————————————————
—————————————————————————————-
4½ bl ‘kklukns’k ds rgr fofu;feuhdj.k fnukad 1 vDVwcj 1990 fufnZ”V fd;s tkus ds
QyLo:Ik fofu;fer fd;s x;s dqy izoDrk@ ,y0 Vh0 xzMs f’k{kdksa dk fo”k;okj]
tuinokj fooj.k funs’kd] ek/;fed f’k{kk @ vij f’k{kk funs’kd ¼mRrjk[k.M½ }kjk
‘kklu dks ;Fkk’kh?kz miyC/k djk;k tk;sxk ,o a ,rn~}kjk fofu;fer izoDrk@ ,y0 Vh0
xzsM f’k{kdska dh ikjLifjd T;s”Brk lwph@ dkfeZd foHkkx }kjk fufnZ”V izfdz;k ds v/khu
fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA^^
The above paragraphs of said Government Order leave no
doubt as to the fact that the appointees in L.T. Grade on adhoc
basis prior to 1st October, 1990 stood regularized w.e.f.
October, 1990 and no further orders were needed as issued by
the respondents on 31.12.1990 to regularized the services of
the petitioner.
7) Learned standing counsel for submitted that the petitioner’s
services cannot be treated to have been regularized w.e.f.
01.10.1990 as no cut-off date has been given in the
Government Order. I see no force in the contention for the
reason that the opening sentence of Para 4 starts with the
expression- bl ‘kklukns’k ds rgr fofu;ferhdj.k fnukad 1 vDVwcj 1990 fufnZ”V
fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i^^ which makes the intention of the
Government Order very clear. As far as regularization of
petitioner is concerned his services stood regularized by the
Government Order dated 21.11.1995 itself as the last word of
Para 1 of said Government Order declare “,rn~}kjk fofu;fer fd;k
tkrk gS^^- That being the position, it cannot be said if the
petitioner could have been deprived of his seniority against the
person (read Pooran Singh Bhandari) who was admittedly
appointed on adhoc basis in L.T. Grade after the year 1991. In
the Para 10 of the Counter Affidavit, respondents have
admitted that Shri Pooran Singh Bhandari was promoted on
adhoc basis as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade w.e.f.
01.01.1992. As such giving promotion to him in lecturer grade
before considering the case of the petitioner is against all
norms of the services law.
5
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
8) Though in the counter affidavit a plea has been taken that
petitioner’s initial appointment stood expired on 14.05.1991
but simultaneously, it has been admitted that under orders of
the Allahabad High Court passed in writ petition No. 14794 of
1991, he continued in the service and said writ petition was
disposed of with the direction that the petitioner be allowed to
continue in service until the duly selected teachers are
appointed through the Commission. As such he was in
continuous service till regularization of his services.
9) In the circumstances, the petitioner has been continuously
serving in the L.T. Grade right from the date 19.09.1990. As
such in view of the above discussion, rejection of the
petitioner’s representation relating to his seniority vide order
dated 17.01.2003 is bad in law. Therefore, the writ petition is
allowed. The mandamus is issued that the petitioner’s services
be treated to have been regularized in L.T. Grade w.e.f.
01.10.1990. The order dated 17.01.2003 (copy Annexure CA-5
to the counter affidavit) where by the representation of the
petitioner was rejected, is quashed. The petitioner’s case for
promotion in the lecturer grade shall be considered in the light
of the observations given in the body of the judgment
considering his due seniority. No order as to costs.”
4. The said order was put to challenge by State
Government before the Division Bench of this Court in
Special Appeal No.28/2005 and the special appeal was
dismissed on 23.02.2006. The SLP (Civil appeal
No.3396/2006) preferred by the State Government was
dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 20.04.2011. The
Hon’ble Apex Court considered the G.O. dated 21.11.1995
and took the view that services of Bhuwan Chandra
Kandpal were rightly held to be regularized w.e.f.
01.10.1990. It appears that there was an interim order in
6
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
the SLP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
after the dismissal of SLP, the State Government
regularized the services of Bhuwan Chandra Kanpdal vide
order dated 13.01.2012 w.e.f. 01.10.1990. After the
dismissal of the SLP, certain other similarly situated
employees filed Writ Petition being WPSS No.1181/2011,
claiming benefit of said G.O. dated 21.11.1995 and their
writ petition was allowed on 12.10.2012 on similar terms
as in the case of Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal, and thereafter
the Special Appeal No.402/2015 preferred by the State
Government assailing the order dated 12.10.2012 was also
dismissed. Certain other Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade)
and Lecturers, who were appointed on adhoc basis prior to
01.10.1990, seeking benefit of G.O. dated 21.11.1995 and
the order passed by the Court in the case of Bhuwan
Chandra Kanpdal, filed various writ petitions, which were
clubbed together and the leading case was WPSS
No.1008/2014 “Trivikram Singh Kunwar and Others vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another“. In the said case,
intervention applications were filed by the Assistant
Teachers who were appointed in CT Grade during the year
1986 to 1989 and who were later on absorbed in LT Grade
in 1991 to 1994. An application was also filed by the
Assistant Teachers, who were directly appointed in the year
7
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
1995 to 1997. The interveners opposed the prayer of the
writ petitioners on the ground that in case the services of
those writ petitioners are treated to be regularized w.e.f.
01.10.1990 and they are granted seniority from the said
date, then their seniority would be affected which was
finalized in the year 2005.
5. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order
dated 03.01.2019, passed in WPSS No.1008 of 2014
however concluded that the judgment in the case of
Bhuwan Chandra Kanpdal is a judgment in rem. The Court
held in para 21 and 22, as under:-
“21. The learned Single Judge has construed G.O. dated
21.11.1995, and has held that, in terms thereof, all appointees
in L.T Grade on ad hoc basis prior to 01.10.1990 stood
regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1990, and no further order was
needed to be issued by the respondents. The construction
placed by the learned Single Judge, on G.O. dated 21.11.1995,
would apply to all those whose services were regularized by
the said G.O. dated 21.11.1995, which include all the
petitioners herein. In terms of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, the State of Uttarakhand was obligated to
regularize the services of all those, who were regularized in
terms of the G.O. dated 21.11.1995, w.e.f. 01.10.1990, and
not in subsequent years ranging from 1999 to 2004.
22. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Bhuwan
Chandra Kandpal vs. State of Uttaranchal and other
(Civil Writ Petition (S/B) No. 162 of 2002) dated
28.10.2004 is a judgment in rem. This judgment was
affirmed by the Supreme Court in its order in Civil Appeal No.
3396 of 2006 dated 20.04.2011, wherein it was held that the
learned Single Judge had taken the correct view in directing8
UKHC0100920420222026:UHC:5461-DB
the services of the respondents to be treated to have been
regularized in LT Grade w.e.f. 01.10.1990. The order of
learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition (S/B) No. 162 of
2002 dated 28.10.2004 has merged in the order of Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 3396 of 2006 dated 20.04.2011.
Consequently, the State of Uttarakhand was obligated to
regularize the services of all those, in whose favour G.O. dated
21.11.1995 was issued, from 01.10.1990, and not subsequent
thereto during the years 1999 to 2004″
6. The Court, while disposing of the writ petition, in
para 29 held as follows:-
“29. While the petitioners have no doubt sought the benefit of
being extended seniority w.e.f. 01.10.1990, we see no reason
to grant them such a relief in this writ petition, as that would
necessitate this Court having to adjudicate upon the inter-se
seniority between the petitioners on the one hand and the
private respondents/interveners on the other. Suffice it,
therefore, to permit the petitioners herein to make a
representation to the State Government with regards their
claim for seniority, consequent upon the order now passed by
us treating their services to have been regularized w.e.f.
01.10.1990. On any such representation being made, the
Government of Uttarakhand shall, after giving all those
affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard, take a
decision, regarding revision of the seniority list, in accordance
with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the petitioners’ claim of seniority, over and above
the private respondents/interveners with effect from
1.10.1990.”
7. The Director, Secondary Education sought
directions from the Secretary, Education towards the
compliance of the said order or to challenge the said order
in a SLP and the Secretary, Education, vide its order dated
23.07.2019 on the basis of opinion given by the Law
9
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
Department and Personnel Department, asked the Director,
Education to comply with the order dated 03.01.2019
passed in WPSS No.1008/2014. Consequently, the Director,
Secondary Education passed an order on 17.08.2019 by
which the Additional Director, Kumaun Mandal, Nainital and
Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun were directed to comply with
the order dated 03.01.2019 and to regularize the services
of the petitioners in the said writ petition, who were
working as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) and Lecturers
w.e.f. 01.10.1990 and to fix their seniority accordingly. As
the proceedings to provide benefit of regularization to the
Lecturers from 01.10.1990 was to be undertaken at the
Directorate level, as such the Additional Director, Kumaun
Mandal and Garhwal Mandal were directed to send the list
of Lecturers appointed on adhoc basis prior to 01.10.1990,
whose services were regularized at a later stage. The
Additional Director, Secondary Education, Kumaun Mandal
and Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, vide orders dated 30.08.2019
and 31.08.2019, respectively passed an order by which the
services of the petitioners in the said writ petition who
were working as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) were
regularized w.e.f 01.10.1990. Vide order dated 11.09.2019
the Additional Director, Secondary Education at Directorate
of Education issued the regularization orders of Lecturers
10
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
regularizing their services w.e.f. 01.10.1990. On
18.09.2019, a seniority list of Lecturers was issued by the
Directorate of Education by which the seniority of the
Lecturers, whose services were regularized on 11.09.2019,
were given the seniority w.e.f. 01.10.1990 i.e. from the
date of their regularization. Thereafter, vide order dated
20.09.2019 the Director, Secondary Education, published
the seniority list of Assistant Teachers as per the date of
regularization i.e. 01.10.1990.
8. Assailing the seniority list issued by the official
respondents, a Writ Petition No.430/2019 “Prem Lata
Baudai vs. State of Uttarakhand” was filed, which was
dismissed as withdrawn on 13.09.2019 with a liberty to file
the claim petition before the Tribunal. A Claim Petition
No.41/NB/DB/2019 was filed by Smt. Prem Lata Baudai
assailing the regularization order dated 13.01.2012 issued
in favour of Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal. Apart from that, the
order dated 23.7.2019 passed by Secretary, Education,
directing the Director, Education to comply with the order
dated 03.01.2019 passed in WPSS No.1008/2014 was also
put to challenge. Further, the order dated 17.08.2019
passed by the Directorate of Education directing the
Additional Director, Kumaun Mandal and Garhwal Mandal to
comply with the orders in writ petition and the
11
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
consequential order of grant of seniority to Assistant
Teachers (L.T. Grade) and Lecturers w.e.f. 01.10.1990
passed by the Education authorities on 30.08.2019,
31.08.2019 and 11.09.2019 were also assailed. The
prayers made in the said claim petition are as follows:-
“(i) To set-aside/quash the impugned order dated order dated
13.01.2012 which is regularization order of the respondent No.
77 (Annexure No. 1 of the claim petition) and the observation
made in para 2 of the order dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure No. 2
of the claim petition) passed by the respondent no. 1 and
order dated 17.08.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure
No. 3 of the claim petition) and order passed by the
respondent No. 5 dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure No. 4 of the
claim petition) and order passed by the respondent No. 4
dated 31.08.2019 (Annexure No. 5 of the claim petition) and
order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2
(Annexure No. 6 of the claim petition), those are outcome of
regularization order dated 13.01.2012 (Annexure No. 1 of the
claim petition).
(ii) To direct the respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 restraining them to
not give the seniority to the private respondents since
01.10.1990 taking into account the latest judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court dated 14.08.201-9 arising out of SLP No. 20990 of
2017 “Kumari C Yamini Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others” (Annexure No. 10 of the claim petition)
(iii) To direct the respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to constitute
a committee and provide the opportunity of hearing to all
effected petitioners and likewise other there working in the
various GIC of Uttarakhand in the tune of para 29 of the order
dated 03.01.2019 passed by Hon’ble High Court in the case of
“Trivikram Singh Kunwar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand
and other”.
(iv) To direct the respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to keep
abeyance the effect and operation of orders dated 23.07.2019,
12
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
17.08.2019, 30.08.2019, 31.08.2019 and 11.09.2019 passed
by the respondents (Annexure Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the claim
petition) which has been arbitrarily passed ignoring the order
of the Hon’ble High Court dated 03.01.2019 without giving the
opportunity of hearing to applicants and likewise other effected
persons.
(v) To direct the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 to not fix the
seniority since 01.10.1990 to the. private respondents, who
have not completed 03 years’ service as an ad-hoc teacher,
which will be in contravention of existing rules framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regularization
annexed here as Government Order dated 26.12.2001
Annexure No. 15 of the claim petition) and, regularization rules
1979 and its extension till 1989 and regularization rules dated
05.07.2002 and 07.08.2002.
(vi) To direct the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to provide
opportunity of hearing, before passing any adverse order by
which the present position of the petitioners and likewise other
teachers, will be effected.
(vii) To pass any other suitable order as this Hon’ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of
the case.
(viii) ‘To award the cost of the petition in favour of the
applicants.”
9. Thereafter, a Claim Petition No.52/NB/DB/2019
“Smt. Prem Lata Baudai and others vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others” was filed before the Tribunal with
a prayer to quash the seniority list issued on 18.09.2019
and 20.09.2019 and not to give effect to the service benefit
to the private respondents as per the seniority list without
providing an opportunity of hearing in view of para-29 of
13
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
judgment dated 03.01.2019 passed in WPSS
No.1008/2014. The prayers made in the said claim petition
are as under:-
(i) To set aside/quash the seniority lists vide Order
No./Seniority/758/Lecturer/19 (2-3)-01/2019-20 dated
18.09.2019 and Order No./Seniority/788/L.T./19 (4-5)-
01/2019-20 dated 20.09.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2
(Annexure No. 1 & 2 of the claim petition).
(ii) To direct the respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 restraining them to
not give the effect in service benefits of private respondents as
per seniority lists dated 18.09.2019 and 20.09.2019 passed by
the respondent No. 2, without hearing to the affected teachers
as per para 29 of judgment dated 03.01.2019 passed in Writ
Petition No. 1008 (S/S) of 2014 Trivikram Singh Kunwar &
others Vs. State & others (Annexure No. 3 of the claim
petition), and complete the proceeding following the provision
of Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000.
(iii) To direct the respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to constitute
a committee and provide the opportunity of hearing to all
affected petitioners and likewise other teachers working in the
various GIC of Uttarakhand in the tune of para 29 of the order
dated 03.01.2019 passed by Hon’ble High Court in the case of
“Trivikram Singh Kunwar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand
and others” and restrained the respondents to provide the
benefit of length of service counting as ad-hoc period for the
length of seniority, in the light of latest judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court dated 14.08.2019 arising out of SLP No. 20990 of
2017 “Kumari C., Yamini Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others” (Annexure No. 9 of the claim petition).
(iv) To direct the respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to keep in
abeyance the effect and operation of vide lists seniority Order
No. /Seniority/758/Lecturer/19 (2-3)-01/2019-20 dated
18.09.2019 and Order No. /Seniority/788/L.T./19 (4-5)-
01/2019-20 dated 20.09.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2
(Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 of the claim petition), restraining them
to not pass any adverse order against the petitioners and
likewise other affected teachers like reversion, on feeding post
14
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
and reduction-in-rank rank and reduction in pay scale etc,
which has been arbitrarily passed ignoring the order of the
Hon’ble High Court dated 03.01.2019 without giving the
opportunity of hearing to applicants and likewise other affected
persons.
(v) To direct the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 to not fix the
seniority since 01.10.1990 to the private not respondents, who
have completed 03 years’ service as an ad-hoc teacher, which
will be in contravention of existing rules framed under Article
309 of the Constitution of India for regularization rules 1979,
and its extension till 1989 and regularization rules dated
05.07.2002 and 07.08.2002.
(vi) To direct the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to provide
opportunity of hearing before passing any adverse order by
which the present position of the petitioners and likewise other
teachers, will be effected.
(vii) To pass any other suitable order as this Hon’ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of
the case.
(viii) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the
applicants.”
10. An interim order dated 16.10.2019 was passed
by the Tribunal in the Claim Petition, which reads as
follows:-
“We find that above finding about fixation of seniority as
per the date of regularization recording in the order dated
30.08.2019, is not in consonance with the orders passed by
the Hon’ble High Court, because before deciding the seniority,
reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the
affected concerned parties. Obviously the petitioners are
affected parties.
Hence, in such circumstances, till the next date of
hearing the respondents are restrained from relying upon the
above part of order dated 30.08.2019, and they are also
directed not to act upon this part of above order for deciding15
UKHC0100920420222026:UHC:5461-DB
the seniority from amended date, without hearing the
petitioners.”
11. In purported compliance of the order passed by
the Tribunal and the order dated 03.01.2019 passed in
WPSS No.1008 of 2014, a notice dated 16.05.2020 was
published in daily newspaper inviting objections from the
affected teachers against the fixation of seniority of
Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) and Lecturers w.e.f.
01.10.1990. The seniority list issued in the month of
September, 2019 was kept in abeyance by the Department.
Vide order dated 13.07.2021, Secretary Education rejected
the claim of the teachers, whose services were regularized
w.e.f. 01.10.1990 and denied to provide them seniority on
the basis of date of their regularization. Vide order dated
23.07.2021, promotion orders were issued granting
promotion to the Lecturers on the post of Principal on the
basis of earlier seniority list issued prior to the seniority list
finalized in September, 2019. The said orders dated
13.07.2021 and 23.07.2021 were challenged in Claim
Petition Nos.59/NB/DB/2021, 62/NB/DB/2021 and
3/NB/DB/2022. In Claim Petition Nos.54/NB/DB/2021,
61/NB/DB/2021 and 86/NB/DB/2021, the order dated
13.07.2021 was put to challenge.
16
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
12. The Tribunal categorized two set of claim
petitions. Petitioners of Claim Petition No.41/NB/DB/2019
and Claim Petition No.52/NB/DB/2019, challenging the
appointment of Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal, orders issued by
Departmental authorities providing benefit of regularization
and seniority to adhoc Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) and
Lecturers w.e.f. 01.10.1990 and the seniority list issued in
their favour, as second set of Lecturers/Assistant Teachers
(L.T. Grade) and Claim Petition No.54/NB/DB/2021 and
other claim petitions filed in the year 2021, and Claim
Petition No.03/NB/DB/2022, challenging the order issued
on 13.07.2021 and 23.07.2021, as first set of Assistant
Teachers.
13. The Tribunal, on hearing the parties at length,
decided the claim petitions by observing that the State
Government shall re-fix the seniority in view of judgment
passed by the Court in the case of Bhuwan Chandra
Kandpal and other connected matters. The operative
portion of the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the
Tribunal reads as follows:-
“23. In view of the above, the G.O. dated 13.07.2021
(Annexure No. 1 to the Claim Petition No. 59/NB/DB/2021) is
not in accordance with law and is hereby set aside. The
respondent State is required to consider the issue of fixation of
inter-se seniority after getting rid of its earlier prejudices like
treating the date of adhoc appointment to be 01.10.1990, 2017
UKHC0100920420222026:UHC:5461-DB
fegularization to be done in 1999 etc. and take a well-
considered justified decision in accordance with law after
verifying the averments made in para 21 of the claim petition
No. 59/NB/DB/2021 and keeping in view our observations
made above and clearly decide from which date(s) seniority is
to be given to the teachers of the First Set. The Govt. in the
Secondary Education Department may complete this exercise
in consultation with the Law Department and Personnel
Department, within a period of three months henceforth. Till
the time such exercise is completed, the promotions made vide
Directorate’s order no. 235 dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure No. 2
to the claim petition no. 59/NB/DB/2021) shall remain in
abeyance and no further promotions of the Lecturers/Assistant
Teachers (L.T. Grade) regularized/appointed on 01.10.1990
and afterwards shall be made.”
14. The aforesaid order dated 21.04.2022 has been
put to challenge by the State Government and the private
teachers in these bunch of writ petitions.
15. In the present matter, a Coordinate Bench of this
Court, on 13.11.2025, took into consideration the
submission made by the learned C.S.C. that all such
persons who were appointed as Assistant Teachers (LT
Grade)/Lecturers prior to 01.10.1990, their seniority would
be counted from the date of appointment i.e. 01.10.1990.
The said order dated 13.11.2025 reads as under:-
“11. Learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that all such
persons, who were appointed as Assistant Teachers (LT)
Grade/ Lecturers, their seniority would be counted from the
date of appointment, i.e. 01.10.1990.
12. The submission is placed on record.
18
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
13. In that view, the issue regarding the seniority of persons
appointed on 01.10.1990 shall be counted from 01.10.1990 in
terms of the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge,
affirmed by the Division Bench and further affirmed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No(s).3396 of 2006.
14. Compliance within two weeks.”
16. An affidavit of compliance has been filed by the
Director In-charge on 29.04.2026, whereby the seniority
list issued by the Additional Director, Kumaun and Garhwal
Mandal dated 26.11.2025 and 27.11.2025 of Assistant
Teachers (L.T. Grade) is placed on record. The seniority list
issued by the Director, Secondary Education of the
Lecturers on 26.11.2025 is also placed on record. In the
said affidavit, the following submissions have been made:-
“3. That in the present matter, the Hon’ble Court vide common
order dated 06.04.2026 passed in the present Writ Petition
with connected batch of Writ Petitions, was pleased to pass the
following directions:-
“10. Learned Standing Counsel seeks further time to file
affidavit on behalf of State Government clarifying
whether the seniority has been given to teachers
appointed before 01.10.1990 extending the benefit of
the law laid down in Special Appeal No. 28 of 2005,
State of Uttarakhand Vs Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal, also
upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3396 of
2006 and, in case, the benefit has been given, to
demonstrate the same by bringing on record the
seniority list.”
4. That in compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble Court
passed vide order dated 06.04.2026 in the present Writ
Petition with connected batch of matters, the answering
respondent department is filing the seniority list(s) of Assistant
Teachers (L.T. Grade) and Lecturers [appointed on ad hoc
19
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
basis prior to 01.10.1990] after regularizing their services from
01.10.1990 and giving them seniority from 01.10.1990 itself,
in the Secondary Education department of the State, as under.
5. That it is respectfully submitted that in compliance of the
judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Court in Special
Appeal No. 28 of 2005 ‘State of Uttarakhand Vs. Bhuwan
Chandra Kandpal’, which was also affirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3396 of 2006, taking in
account the ad hoc services rendered by Mr. Bhuwan Chandra
Kandpal in L.T. Grade, the benefit of seniority was provided to
him w.e.f. 01.10.1990, vide office order dated 13.01.2012
issued by the Office of the Director, School Education
(Secondary), Uttarakhand, Dehradun. True photocopy/ correct
typed version of the office order dated 13.01.2012 is annexed
as ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this affidavit.
6. That it is further submitted that in compliance of the order
dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Court in the present
Writ Petition along with connected batch of Writ Petitions, and
the directions issued from the level of the Government vide
letter dated 24.11.2025 and at the level of the Directorate
dated 24.11.2025, the Office of the Additional Director,
Secondary Education, Garhwal Division, Pauri [who is the
appointing authority of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) in
Garhwal Division] vide office order dated 26.11.2025 passed
the order of amending the date of regularisation and seniority
of the Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) [appointed on ad hoc
basis prior to 01.10.1990] after regularizing their services from
01.10.1990 and giving them seniority from 01.10.1990 itself.
In Garhwal Division, the services of total 268 Assistant
Teachers (L.T. Grade) [under (1)-General Category-224 and
under (2)-Women Category 44] have been regularised w.e.f.
01.10.1990, and accordingly they have been provided seniority
w.e.f. 01.10.1990. True photocopy/ correct typed version of
the amended seniority list issued by the Office of the
Additional Director, Secondary Education, Garhwal Division,
Pauri vide office memo dated 26.11.2025 is annexed as
ANNEXURE NO. 2 to this affidavit.
20
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
7. That similarly the Office of the Additional Director,
Secondary Education, Kumaon Division, Nainital [who is the
appointing authority of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) in
Kumaon Division] vide office order dated 27.11.2025 passed
the order of amending the date of regularisation and seniority
of the Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) [appointed on ad hoc
basis prior to 01.10.1990] after regularizing their services from
01.10.1990 and giving them seniority from 01.10.1990 itself.
In Kumaon Division, Nainital, the services of total 259
Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) [under (1)-General Category-
186 and under (2)-Women Category 73] have been regularised
w.e.f. 01.10.1990, and accordingly they have been provided
seniority w.e.f. 01.10.1990. True photocopy/ correct typed
version of the amended seniority list issued by the Office of the
Additional Director, Secondary Education, Kumaon Division,
Nainital vide office order dated 27.11.2025 is annexed as
ANNEXURE NO. 3 to this affidavit.
8. That similarly the Office of the Director, Secondary
Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun vide office order dated
26.11.2025 passed the order of amending the date of
regularisation and seniority of the Lecturers (Secondary
Education) [appointed on ad hoc basis prior to 01.10.1990]
after regularizing their services from 01.10.1990 and giving
them seniority from 01.10.1990 itself. It is relevant to mention
here that in the entire State of Uttarakhand, the services of
total 418 Lecturers (Secondary Education) [under (1)-General
Category-370 and under (2)-Women Category 48] have been
regularised w.e.f. 01.10.1990, and accordingly they have been
provided seniority w.e.f. 01.10.1990. True photocopy/ correct
typed version of the amended seniority list of Lecturers
(Secondary Education) issued by the Office of the Director,
Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun vide office order
dated 26.11.2025 is annexed as Annexure No.4 to this
affidavit.
9. That in view of the facts mentioned above, the directions of
the Hon’ble Court passed vide the order dated 13.11.2025 in
the present Writ Petition along with connected batch of Writ
Petitions, have been complied with at the level of the
respondent department, and the date of regularisation and
21
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
seniority of the Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) and Lecturers
has been revised w.e.f. 01.10.1990.”
17. Learned counsel for the State, thus, submits that
the order passed by the Tribunal has been complied with
and nothing survives in the writ petition filed by the State
against the impugned order.
18. The said submission made by learned Standing
Counsel, is placed on record.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPSB
No.362 of 2022, however, submits that the G.O. Dated
21.11.1995 cannot override the provisions of the
Regularization Rules and the said aspect has not been
considered by the Court in the case of Bhuwan Chandra
Kandpal or in the writ petitions filed thereafter. As such the
services of the Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) and
Lecturers were not liable to be regularized w.e.f.
01.10.1990 and they are also not liable to be provided
seniority w.e.f. from the said date.
20. A perusal of the record reveals that the G.O.
dated 21.11.1995 was put to challenge in WPSS
No.542/2013 and prior to that a similar prayer was made in
WPSS No.199 of 2013 whereby the regularization of
Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal w.e.f. 01.10.1990 was put to
22
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
challenge. The Court in WPSS 542of 2013 which was
decided on 16.11.2018 held as under:-
“1) By means of present writ petition, petitioners seek
following prayers, among others:
“(i) Issue a writ or direction declaring the G.O. No.3179- 15-
2-75-27 (40/93) dated 21.11.1995 (Annexure 1 to the writ
petition) issued by the Special Secretary of U.P. Govt. as
being illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, contrary to statutory
rules and violative of the fundamental right of the petitioners.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the State and its officers not to give effect to any
provision of G.O. dated 21.11.1995 . (iii) Issue writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents
not to disturb settled seniority list and consider the promotion
of the petitioners ignoring the provision of G.O. dated
21.11.1995.”
2) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are direct
recruits Lecturers appointed in various G.G.I.C. and selected
by the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission in the
year 1996 pursuant to the advertisement published in the year
1994. These Lecturers were to be placed over and above the
adhoc regularized Lecturers. In the meanwhile, the
Government vide G.O. dated 21.11.1995 regularized the
services of adhoc Lecturers, who were appointed prior to
01.10.1990.
3) Before proceeding further, it needs to be mentioned here
that some similarly situated persons filed a writ petition before
this Court as being Writ Petition No.199 of 2013 (S/S), titled
as, Dr. Atul Kumar Srivastava & others vs. State of
Uttarakhand & others, which was dismissed by the coordinate
bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.07.2016. Feeling
aggrieved by this order, two Special Appeal Nos.207/2015 (Dr.
Atul Kumar Srivastava vs. Rajeev Kala) and 402/2015 (State
of Uttarakhand vs. Rajeev Kala) had been preferred before the
Division Bench of this Court. This Court has been informed by
learned counsel for the parties that the Division Bench of this
Court had dismissed the said special appeals, vide order dated
26.10.2018.
23
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
4) Earlier, Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal (respondent no.4 herein)
filed a writ petition No.162 of 2002 (S/B) before this Court way
back in the year 2002 with a prayer to direct the respondent
authority to treat his services regularized in L.T. grade w.e.f.
01.10.1990. Vide judgment dated 28.10.2004 passed in WPSB
No.162 of 2002, learned coordinate bench of this Court
allowed the petition of Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal (respondent
no.4 herein) and directed the authority to grant him the
benefit of G.O. dated 21.11.1995, which is under challenge in
the present writ petition. The question before the learned
Single Judge was as to whether Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal was
liable to get his seniority from the date of his adhoc
appointment or from a later date. Learned Single Judge held
that petitioner (Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal) was liable to be
regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1990. The said judgment dated
28.10.2004 was challenged by the State Government before
the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.28 of
2005 (State of Uttarakhand vs. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal),
which was dismissed, vide order dated 23.02.2006. Feeling
aggrieved, the State Government had preferred a Civil Appeal
No.3396 of 2006 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said
civil appeal was also dismissed, vide order dated 20.04.2011,
which reads as follows: “Head Sri S. S. Sham Sherry, learned
counsel for the appellants. Upon perusal of the Government
Order No.3179/15-2-95-27(40)-93 dated November 21, 1995,
we are of the view that the Single Judge of the High Court took
the correct view in directing that the services of the
respondents be treated to have been regularized in L.T. Grade
w.e.f. October 1, 1990. The dismissal of the Special Appeal by
the Division Bench, therefore, cannot be faulted. The appeal
has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.”
5) The order, by which the benefit was granted to Bhuwan
Chandra Kandpal (respondent no.4 herein), has been upheld
by Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in 2006. The matter has
attained its finality from Hon’ble Apex Court and it is a well
settled law that when a higher court has rendered a particular
decision, the said decision must be followed by a subordinate
or lower court unless it is distinguished or overruled or set
aside. In view of above, this Court finds that the controversy
involved in the matter has already been set at rest.
24
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
6) Besides this, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches, in as much as the vacancy was
advertised in the year 1994, the petitioners were appointed in
the year 1996 and the Government Order, which is under
challenge, was issued in the year 1995 and after a lapse of
about 17 years, present petition has been filed in the year
2013.”
21. Moreover, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
WPSS No.1008 of 2014 has held that the judgment in the
case of Bhuwan Chandra Kanpdal is a judgment in rem and
the benefit was provided to the Assistant Teachers and
Lecturers, who were similarly situated like Bhuwan Chandra
Kanpdal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.3396/2006, which was filed against the judgment in the
case of Bhuwan Chandra Kanpdal, had also considered the
G.O. dated 21.11.1995 and in its order dated 20.04.2011
has held as under:-
“Heard Mr. S.S. Sham Sherry, learned counsel for the
appellants. Upon perusal of the Government Order No.179/15-
2-95-27(40)-93 dated November 21, 1995, we are of the view
that the Single Judge of the High Court took the correct view in
directing that the services of the respondents be treated to
have been regularized in L.T. Grade w.e.f. October 1, 1990.
The dismissal of the Special Appeal by the Division Bench,
therefore, cannot be faulted.
The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order
as to costs.”
22. Thus the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in respect of G.O. dated
25
UKHC010092042022
2026:UHC:5461-DB
21.11.1995 and the regularization of Bhuwan Chandra
Kandpal and similarly situated employees w.e.f. 01.10.1990
and granting them the seniority from the said date cannot
be reconsidered and the said issue cannot be reopened
now.
23. The Tribunal had directed the State Government
to consider the issue of fixation of inter-se seniority and as
the same has been done vide order dated 26.11.2025 and
27.11.2025 and the seniority of the Assistant Teachers (L.T.
Grade) and Lecturers appointed prior to 01.10.1990 has
been fixed from the date of their regularization as such the
challenge thrown to the impugned order does not survive.
Consequently, the writ petitions fail and the same are
hereby dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
07.07.2026
Rajni
26
