Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 911 (MP)

Bhikharoo Ram Sahu v. Municipal Corporation, Durg

1998-11-26

C.K.PRASAD

body1998
JUDGMENT By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of promotion of respondent No.3 as the Principal of Mahatma Gandhi Higher Secondary School, Durg. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a Committee consisting of 3 members was constituted to make the selection for promotion to the post of Principal. Said committee held its meeting on 23.6.1987 and after considering the candidature of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and other 12 candidates prepared a panel in which the name of petitioner is placed at serial No.2 and that of respondent No.3 at serial No.3. The Panel prepared by the Committee thereafter was placed for consideration before the standing Committee of the Corporation in its meeting held on 25.7.1987. It seems that the members of the Standing Committee were divided in their opinion and the President of the Standing Committee had cast his casting vote. From the reading of resolution of the standing Committee it appears that 4 members approved the panel and proposed that the Commissioner be authorised to make promotion in accordance with rule. However, 3 members namely Shiv Kumar Pali, Shri Komal Singh Thakur and Radheshyam Sharma opined that the first person in the panel is not suitable for promotion and they also objected to the name of the petitioner who is at serial No.2 of the panel. Thus the members of the standing committee were divided in their opinion. As stated earlier, petitioner is not placed at serial No. 1 of the Panel. 4 members opined for promotion of the person strictly in accordance with the placement of the candidates in the panel whereas 3 members opined for promotion of respondent No.3. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the president to cast his casting vote, as votes cast by the members were not equal. It seems that the resolution of the 'standing Committee resolving to promote respondent No.3 as the Principal of the School, was sent to the Government for its approval. The State Government by its letter dated 15.11.1997 (Annex. P.5) accorded permission to the Corporation to make promotion to the post of Principal on the condition that concurrence of the Public Service Commission shall be obtained within 6 months. The State Government by its letter dated 15.11.1997 (Annex. P.5) accorded permission to the Corporation to make promotion to the post of Principal on the condition that concurrence of the Public Service Commission shall be obtained within 6 months. Thereafter, by order dt.23.12.1987, respondent No.3 was promoted as Principal of the School in anticipation of the approval of the M.P. Public Service Commission. Thereafter, again, by order dt. 23.2.1988 (Annexure P.7), respondent No.3 was promoted Principal of the School in anticipation of approval of the Public Service Commission for 6 months. It is the stand of the petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid order promoting respondent No.3 for six months, as principal of the School, in anticipation of the approval of Public Service Commission, respondent No.3 continued as such and retired from the said post on 30th April 1990. Mr. Ramesh Shrivastava appears on behalf of the petitioner. Inspite of service of notice on respondents, no body has chosen to appear on their behalf. Shri Shrivastava, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that majority decision of the Standing Committee of the Corporation clearly shows that it had decided to make promotion in accordance with placement of a person in the list and although only 3 members have voted for promotion of respondent No.3, by a dubious device, President has cast his casting vote and decided to appoint respondent No.3. He submits that as 4 members were in favour of the petitioner, there was no occasion for the President to cast his casting vote and in view of the resolution of the Standing Committee itself, petitioner ought to have been promoted as Principal of the School. True, it is that only 3 members have voted for promotion of respondent No.3, but 4 other members have nowhere suggested for promotion of the petitioner also. 4 members of the standing committee have opined for promotion in accordance with the placement of candidates in the Panel. Petitioner is not placed at serial No.1 of the Panel and in my opinion, any person who should have been aggrieved was Brijendra Singh who was at Sl. No. 1 of the Panel, but he has not chosen to challenge the promotion of respondent No.3 as Principal. As such, at the instance of the petitioner, I am not inclined to upset the promotion of respondent No.3 on this ground. Mr. No. 1 of the Panel, but he has not chosen to challenge the promotion of respondent No.3 as Principal. As such, at the instance of the petitioner, I am not inclined to upset the promotion of respondent No.3 on this ground. Mr. Shrivastava, then, contends that as the name of the petitioner is at serial No.2 of the list, respondent No.3 who is placed below him, ought not to have been promoted. He, however, has not brought to my notice, any statutory provision or the decision of respondents which contemplates that promotion has to be made strictly in accordance with placement of a person in the list. Three persons have been selected by the Committee. The Standing Committee taking into consideration the qualification of respondent No.3 had chosen to appoint him to the post of Principal. This cannot be said to be illegal. Mr. Shrivastava, lastly contends that the petitioner is M.A., B.T., and respondent No.3 even if he has post graduate degree in two subjects and qualification of B.Ed., he cannot have any edge over the petitioner. In his submission, qualification of appointment to the post of Principal is irrelevant. I do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting this submission of the learned counsel. In an academic institution, qualification of the Principal is relevant. Principals are not only expected to supervise curriculum but are also expected to teach the students. Qualification, is thus, relevant consideration. Having found no merit in either of the submissions of Shri Shrivastava, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.