IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPSS No. 1011 of 2008 Yashpal Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……Respondents. Mr. R.K. Raizada, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1 to 5. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 15th October, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri allowing the respondent no. 6 to officiate as Principal of Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidyalaya Inter College, Gurukul Narson, Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that admittedly, post of Principal fell vacant on account of retirement of the regular principal working on the post and as per the rules, the senior most lecturer was to be allowed to officiate as Principal. Respondent no. 6 being senior most lecturer was allowed to officiate as principal, but on account of personal problems/difficulties, he requested the Committee of Management and the Educational Authorities that he should be relieved from the responsibility to officiate as Principal. Accordingly, the next senior most lecturer was allowed to officiate, but he declined to officiate as principal. Then the third one was allowed to officiate as Principal, who also after officiating for some time, declined to officiate as 2 principal like respondent no. 6. Then again, the Additional Director Education vide order impugned in the writ petition dated 20.08.2008 allowed the respondent no. 6 to officiate ignoring the recommendation of the District Education Officer to allow the petitioner to officiate. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 6 is the senior most lecturer and had officiated for some time. It is also not in dispute that the senior most lecturer is first to be given the opportunity to officiate. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is at Serial No. 4 in the seniority list. 4. Now, the senior most lecturer, who had officiated for some time has again been allowed to officiate. There can be no claim of the lecturer, who figures at Serial No. 4 in the seniority list. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently relied on the judgment dated 7.4.1994 passed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 141 of 1993 Smt. Sudesh Kakkar Vs. The Regional Inspectress contained as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition and argued that once a teacher has exercised his option by not accepting the post of officiating principal, he could not be allowed to change the option. 6. Here in the present case, the facts are not like the facts of that case. Here, the respondent no. 6 had exercised option on the post of Principal and he held the post of the Principal in the officiating capacity for about one year and ten months. Then, 3 on account of his personal problems, he made a request for not to continue, thus, the ratio of the Division Bench is not attracted. Here, the option was duly exercised to officiate as Principal. 7. The difficulties and problems are unforeseen, which comes and makes the person to change the situation and accordingly, on account of problems and difficulties, the respondent no. 6 made a request. Now, if he again is allowed to officiate as Principal, he must be allowed to continue as his option to officiate as Principal has already been accepted and he had officiated for one year and ten months. Thus, the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Additional Director of Education Garhwal Mandal, Pauri is inconformity of the rules and the recommendation of the District Education Officer is bad. The Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri has rightly recommended and allowed the respondent no. 6 to officiate as Principal. 8. Thus, for the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine along with pending application(s). No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 15.10.2008 Rathour/Bhaskar