JUDGMENT : (Ritu Bahri, CJ.) : The State of Uttarakhand has come up in appeal against the judgment dated 18.01.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2144 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 herein has been allowed. 2. Respondent no.1 had approached this Court seeking setting aside of the order dated 29.06.2019, passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, whereby the representation of respondent no.1 claiming continuance of his service had been rejected. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Mathematics) in Vinayak Government Intermediate College, Jamoli, District Almora on 07.08.2001 as Parents Teachers Association Lecturer (PTA). This selection was done by a Committee. The petitioner joined the Intermediate College on 08.08.2001. In the year 2009, the part-time PTA teachers were conferred the status of ad hoc teachers by incorporation of Section 41 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 (for short “the Act”). Accordingly, the petitioner was also conferred ad hoc status by an order dated 22.06.2009. On 02.08.2011, the Intermediate College was provincialised and a Government Order dated 02.08.2011 stipulated the conditions for the provincialisation of the College. Paragraph Nos.5 and 8 of the G.O. dated 02.08.2011 are important. According to paragraph 5 of the G.O. dated 02.08.2011, only such working staff would be appointed temporarily in the College postprovincialisation who possess requisite qualification. According to Paragraph 8 of it, the PTA teachers would not be absorbed post-provincialisation. But, subsequently, Paragraph 8 of the G.O. dated 02.08.2011 was deleted by another Government Order dated 04.01.2017 (Annexure-4, Page 98 of the Special Appeal). It paved the way for absorption of PTA teaches post-provincialisation. 3. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner continued teaching in Intermediate College after its provincialisation, and was paid salary of the Lecturer till 31.08.2012, and after 11.03.2014, he was not permitted to take classes. 4. Petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.1201 of 2014, which was disposed of on 12.04.2018 by giving directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and also by taking into consideration that he had put in fourteen years of uninterrupted service as PTA teacher. 5. 4. Petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.1201 of 2014, which was disposed of on 12.04.2018 by giving directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and also by taking into consideration that he had put in fourteen years of uninterrupted service as PTA teacher. 5. Vide order dated 23.06.2018, petitioner’s representation was rejected, which was further challenged by him in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2811 of 2018, and the same was allowed on 08.04.2019 and the impugned order dated 23.06.2018 was quashed with directions to respondent no.1 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, again the order dated 28.06.2019 was passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, and at this backdrop, the petitioner preferred the writ petition. 6. The learned Single Judge has examined the case of the petitioner on the following grounds:- (i) Initially when the petitioner was appointed as a PTA teacher as Lecturer (Mathematics), B.Ed. was not an essential qualification for appointment of a Lecturer in view of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In the year 2008, by virtue of the Uttarakhand Special Subordinate Education Lecturers Cadre Service Rules, 2008, B.Ed. has been made essential qualification for Lecturer, but the teachers, who had already been appointed could not have been disturbed on the ground that they did not possess the B.Ed. qualification. (ii) Petitioner had been working since 2001, and as per the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2811 of 2018, which was allowed on 08.04.2019, he was given protection of Section 41 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006. It was held that PTA teachers were protected under Section 41 of the Act, and another ground was that, after provincialisation, which was done by G.O. dated 02.08.2011, and the status of the petitioner could not have been taken away on account of provincialisation. (iii) As per the order dated 08.04.2019, it was further held that the essential qualification of B.Ed. could not be made applicable to reject the case of the petitioner for continuance of service. 7. In the year 2009, Section 41 was added in the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, which reads as under:- “41. (iii) As per the order dated 08.04.2019, it was further held that the essential qualification of B.Ed. could not be made applicable to reject the case of the petitioner for continuance of service. 7. In the year 2009, Section 41 was added in the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, which reads as under:- “41. Ad hoc appointment of Part Time Teacher/ Acting P.T.A. Teachers by Committee of Management:- The committee of management shall appoint on ad hoc basis such part time/ P.T.A. teachers as were employed upto 05-09-2003 by the Committee of Management from its own resource, for which sub substantive posts were created at the time and who possessed qualification prescribed for the corresponding posts and who were paid honorarium from the government funds.” 8. The petitioner was given ad hoc appointment by the Chief Education Officer on 22.06.2009 on a pay-scale. He continued working as Lecturer on ad hoc basis till 02.08.2011 when the College was provincialised. 9. Pursuant to the order dated 18.08.2021, the respondents filed an affidavit and gave details of total 13 Lecturers, who did not possess B.Ed. qualification. As per the affidavit given, out of thirteen Lecturers, seven were merged in Government service, who did not possess B.Ed. qualification, keeping in view their length of service. Other teachers were given three years’ time to acquire B.Ed. qualification. The reasoning given for merging those seven Lecturers, who did not possess B.Ed. qualification, was that they had been recruited to government service as per the service rule applicable at that time, and teachers who were working in aided schools on regular basis prior to provincialization and who did not possess B.Ed. qualification were merged in the Government service, however, the lecturers who were working on ad hoc basis in Government aided schools prior to provincialisation and did not have B.Ed. qualification were not merged in the Government service. 10. Learned Single Judge examined the case of the petitioner while keeping in view the length of service from 2001 till 2014, it was observed that in the earlier writ petition, which was disposed of on 08.04.2019, this Court had decided that the status of the petitioner could not have been taken away after provincialisation on the ground that he did not possess B.Ed. qualification, and after giving this decision, the respondents could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner for merger into the government service, and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. 11. During the course of hearing of this special appeal on 14.02.2024, when this case was taken up for hearing, we have gone through the affidavit filed by the In-charge Chief Education Officer, Almora, dated 03.01.2023. In this affidavit, in Paragraph No.4, it is stated that 20 lecturers, who are working on ad hoc basis and were non-B.Ed., had been regularized. 12. During to the course of hearing of this special appeal on 22.02.2024, the Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ appellants was asked to supply a copy of the order, whereby the services of twenty teachers, who were not B.Ed., have been regularized. A copy of the order dated 18.06.2016 has been supplied by the Chief Standing Counsel for the State. The order dated 18.06.2016 shows the details of 26 teachers, who were appointed in accordance with law in the year 2009, and had been regularized w.e.f. 17.12.2015. However, in Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit dated 03.01.2023, it has been stated that while the teachers so appointed on ad hoc basis were regularized in the year 2015, but the qualification as per Section 40(1)(b) remained unchanged. A copy of the Uttarakhand School Education Amendment Act, 2015 has been placed on record as Annexure-2 (Page No.23 of the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent no.3). Section 40(1)(b) of the Uttarakhand School Education Amendment Act, 2015, reads as under:- “Substitution of Section 40(1)(a)(iii): Sub clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 40 of the UTTARAKHAND SCHOOL EDUCATION ACT, 2006 shall be substituted as follows; namely: (iii) was appointed on adhoc basis in lecturer grade or trained graduate grade on or after 26 january 2005, but not after 30 june 2010 against substantive vacancy in accordance with the provisions of section 40 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 and hold prescribed qualification and eligibility against the post.” 13. Petitioner’s case is not covered as per the above said rule, as he was appointed before January, 2005, and he cannot take the benefit of regularization of those twenty teachers, who were non-B.Ed. Petitioner’s case is not covered as per the above said rule, as he was appointed before January, 2005, and he cannot take the benefit of regularization of those twenty teachers, who were non-B.Ed. Even this ground taken by the respondents in the supplementary-affidavit dated 03.01.2023, does not support their case at all, as the petitioner was eligible for appointment as per the Rules prevalent in the year 2001, and has continued to work till 11.03.2014. 14. Along with the special appeal, the appellants have placed on record the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No (S/S) No.1221 of 2014, dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure-5), wherein the petitioner was working as PTA Teacher in an inter college, where grant-in-aid was granted, and the college was being provincialised, and he was claiming the benefit of regularization. The said writ petition was dismissed for regularization on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as PTA teacher, and his salary was not being paid by the State exchequer, and reference was made to the judgment dated 05.11.2014, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) Nos.726 of 2014 and 1025 of 2014 (Page No.101 of the special appeal), whereby the claim of the PTA teachers for regularization was dismissed. 15. The appellants have also filed a supplementary-affidavit dated 03.01.2023, and along with this affidavit, they have placed on record list of 81 teachers, who were granted the benefit of ad hoc status (Annexure-1, Page No.10 of the supplementary-affidavit). In Paragraph No.4, it is stated that 20 teachers working on ad hoc basis as Lecturer were non B.Ed., but were regularized, and the ground for their regularization was that they were post-graduate at the relevant time, and were having the required minimum qualification for being appointed as Lecturer, and their case was also covered by Section 40(1)(a)(iii) of the Uttarakhand School Education Amendment Act, 2015. 16. Another ground to dismiss the special appeal is that, as per the Government Order dated 04.01.2017 (Annexure-4, Page No.98 of the Special Appeal), the Government has taken a conscious decision to delete Paragraph No.8 of the G.O. dated 02.08.2011, and to absorb the PTA teachers post provincialisation. Once the Government has taken a decision to delete Paragraph No.8 of the G.O. dated 02.08.2011, the order dated 04.01.2017 (Annexure-4, Page No.98 of the Special Appeal) will be applicable w.e.f. 02.08.2011. Once the Government has taken a decision to delete Paragraph No.8 of the G.O. dated 02.08.2011, the order dated 04.01.2017 (Annexure-4, Page No.98 of the Special Appeal) will be applicable w.e.f. 02.08.2011. Hence, respondent no.1, who was a part-time PTA teacher, was conferred the status of ad hoc teacher by incorporation of Section 41 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, in the year 2009, could not be denied the benefit of absorption on the ground that the Institute where he was working was provincialised. Therefore, the above two orders have no bearing on the case of the present respondent-writ petitioner, as the Government themselves have taken a conscious decision to delete Paragraph No.8 of the G.O. dated 02.08.2011. 17. The above said Act of 2015 has no bearing on the case of the present respondent-writ petitioner, as the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed in the year 2001, and was given ad hoc status in the year 2009, and his only grievance is that he has not been regularized because the College where he was working, had been provincialised in the year 2009. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the special appeal is dismissed. 19. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.