Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Physics) in a government aided intermediate college, namely, Janta Inter College, Jakheti, District Pauri
Garhwal vide order dated 08.01.2007. Post of Principal in the said college fell vacant on 31.03.2014 on account of superannuation of the regular
incumbent. Petitioner was given officiating charge as Principal w.e.f. 1st April, 2014. Subsequently, the process for regular selection on the post of
Principal of the concerned College was initiated by issuing Advertisement dated 22.11.2014.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.01.2023 issued by Additional Director of Education, Pauri, where by three Subject
Experts were nominated for holding select ion for the post of Principal. Petitioner has also challenged the entire selection process, which was initiated
pursuant to Advertisement dated 22.11.2014.
3. It is cont ended by learned counsel for petitioner t hat since petitioner was the senior - most Lecturer in the concerned Institution on the date when
the post of Principal fell vacant , therefore, he was entitled to be appointed as Downgrade Principal, and upon completion of five years’ service as
Downgrade Principal, petitioner is entitled to be regularly promoted as Principal, with all monetary benefits. Therefore, according to him, selection
process, initiated vide Advertisement dated 22.11.2014, is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is in derogation of the right created in favour
of the petitioner by Regulation framed under Section 18 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act , 2006.
4. Learned State Counsel, by referring to the document contained as Annexure- 3 to the writ petition, submits that petitioner is not the senior - most,
but one Smt. Anjana is the senior - most Lecturer, but since Smt. Anjana had expressed her unwillingness to serve as officiating Principal, therefore,
the charge was given to petitioner. He further submits that petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification, as prescribed by the Regulations, for
appointment as Downgrade Principal. He submits that Regulation provides that one should be the senior - most lecturer and he should also be getting
selection grade after putting in 10 years of service on the post of Lecturer, while petitioner does not meet any of the two conditions.
5. We find substance in the said submissions.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner concedes that petitioner is not the senior - most Lecturer serving in the concerned Institution. He, however, relies
upon Government Order dated 05.01.2022 issued by Additional Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Uttarakhand, which is
on record as Annexure- 14 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said Government Order reveals that pursuant to the request made by Management of
certain government aided intermediate colleges, the State Government relaxed the condition that only the senior - most Lecturer would be appointed as
Downgrade Principal, by providing t hat the second senior - most Lecturer can also be appointed as Downgrade Principal, if the senior - most
Lecturer cannot be appointed as Downgrade Principal due to adverse ACR entries, or due to any other legal impediment.
7. Reliance by petitioner’s counsel on the said Government Order is misplaced. I n the present case, Smt. Anjana is the senior - most Lecturer
and she does not suffer from any disqualification from being appointed as Downgrade Principal. Even otherwise also, the Regulations, which provide
that only the senior â€" most Lecturer has to be appointed as Downgrade Principal, are statutory in nature. An executive instruction or Government
Order cannot over ride a provision contained in the Statute. The Government Order was issued in respect of certain colleges in view of the request
made by the Management of the concerned Colleges, therefore, the said Government Order has no application to the case of petitioner. Even
otherwise also, the provision contained in the statutory Regulation will prevail upon the order issued by the State Government in its executive power.
8. Since petitioner do not fulfill the eligibility condition for appointment as Downgrade Principal in terms of the applicable Regulations, therefore, he is
not entitled to the relief as claimed in the writ petition. The Management is well within its right to hold selection for regular appointment on the post of
Principal.
9. Thus, there is no scope for interference in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
