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. 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 the college. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in claiming that he is the senior most lecturer available in the college. 6. Regulation 2(1) of the Regulations is as under: 7. A bare perusal of the Regulation clearly reveals that according to Regulation 2(1), the foremost duty of the Management is to ensure that the regular appointment is made to the post of the Principal. The Regulation does contain two different provisos. 6. Regulation 2(1) of the Regulations is as under: 7. A bare perusal of the Regulation clearly reveals that according to Regulation 2(1), the foremost duty of the Management is to ensure that the regular appointment is made to the post of the Principal. The Regulation does contain two different provisos. But the requirement of the proviso is that "the senior most lecturer" is eligible if his services are found to be satisfactory and he should be appointed as the downgrade Principal for a period of five years. 8. However, the issue is as to what steps need to be taken by the Management when the senior most lecturer is not found to be suitable for the post of Principal? 9. Naturally the answer to this issue is given by the main provision contained in Regulation 2(1). Therefore, if the senior most lecturer is found to be neither eligible, nor suitable for the post of Principal, the Management is legally bound to take recourse to the main provision of law, and to initiate regular recruitment for the post of Principal. It is not the requirement of the law that the Management should draw up a comparative merit list of the senior lecturers and then appoint the lecturer who is found to be eligible and suitable for the post of downgrade Principal. Hence, the contention being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since Mr. Virendra Kumar Petwal is ineligible and unsuitable for the post, it is the petitioner who must be appointed as the downgrade Principal, the said contention is belied by the provisions of law itself. 10. Since Mr. Virendra Kumar Petwal was the senior most lecturer, and not the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 was justified in directing the Management to examine as to who is the senior most lecturer. Moreover, since the Management was of the opinion that Mr. Virendra Kumar Petwal is neither eligible, nor suitable for the post of Principal as there are allegedly certain adverse entries in his A.C.Rs, it was well justified in publishing the advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates. Hence, there is no illegality either in the impugned order, or in the impugned advertisement. 11. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to cost.