Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 972 (ALL)

HARI RAM YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2000-07-27

U.K.DHAON

body2000
U. K. DHAON, J. ( 1 ) I have heard Sri S. M. Nasir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. S. Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 4 and the learned standing counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 3, ( 2 ) PETITIONER has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to handover the charge of acting principal to the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 29. 1. 1996. Petitioner has alleged in the petition that he was appointed as a Sanskrit Teacher in l. T. Grade on 2. 7. 1965 and later on he was promoted as lecturer on 1. 12. 1971. Sri Brij Ballabh singh, the permanent principal of the college died on 5. 9. 1986 and thereafter the post of principal had fallen vacant and Sri Desh Raj Slngh was appointed as ad hoc principal of the college who submitted his resignation, on 15. 4. 1988, a photostate copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has also been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner is the next seniormost lecturer after opposite party No. 4 and is fully eligible for appointment as ad hoc principal but due to mala fide intention, he was ignored by the Committee of Management and the charge of acting principal was handed over to Sri Vidya Prakash Misra who was at serial No. 4 in the seniority list. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the resolution of the committee of Management dated 23rd September, 1994, a copy of which has been annexed by the opposite party No. 4 is illegal and the Committee of Management has no authority to appoint the opposite party No. 4 as ad hoc principal again as earlier he had resigned on 15. 4. 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Satyavir Singh v. D. I. O. S. . Bulaadshahr and others, 7995 ALR 139. He further submits that on the representation made by the petitioner the D. I. O. S. has issued letters dated 13. 7. 1994 and 29. 1. 4. 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Satyavir Singh v. D. I. O. S. . Bulaadshahr and others, 7995 ALR 139. He further submits that on the representation made by the petitioner the D. I. O. S. has issued letters dated 13. 7. 1994 and 29. 1. 1996 directing the manager of the College to handover the charge to the petitioner but inspite of the aforesaid orders the Committee of Management has paid no heed and the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court. ( 3 ) SRI H. S. Sahay, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 submits that the Committee of management has not committed any illegality in passing the resolution dated 23. 9. 1994 by which petitioner was appointed as ad hoc principal of the college. He further submits that since 1994 opposite party No. 4 is functioning as ad hoc principal and his signatures have also been attested by the District inspector of Schools and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Committee of Management, he may approach to the Deputy Director of Eduction for redressal and the instant writ petition is not maintainable. He has further submitted that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition in the year 1996 although opposite party No. 4 was appointed in the year 1994 and laches have not been explained in the writ petition. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Jai Kishna inter College v. D. I. O. S. , basti and others. (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2088 , and on the strength of the aforesaid judgment Sri sahay submits that even if opposite party No. 4 has rendered his resignation, it cannot be treated for all time to come and the Committee of Management has rightly appointed the opposite party no. 4 as ad hoc principal. ( 4 ) LEARNED standing counsel has submitted that the Committee of Management is under the obligation to implement the orders of the District inspector of Schools which were passed in favour of the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute that on 5. 4. 1988. ( 5 ) I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute that on 5. 4. 1988. the opposite party No. 4 has tendered the resignation from the post of ad hoc principal. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is next to Sri Dean Raj singh, opposite party No. 4 in the seniority list. In the instant case, the opposite party No. 4 tendered his resignation on 15. 4. 1988 on the ground of domestic problems and thereafter the management by way of resolution dated 15. 4. 1988 appointed Sri Vidya Prakash Misra, who was junior to the petitioner and it was thereafter only when the petitioner agitated the matter before the educational authorities and. the D. I. O. S. vide order dated 13. 7. 1994 directed the Manager of the College to give charge to the petitioner of the post of ad hoc principal. Writ petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of laches and of alternative remedy as the petitioner is approaching the educational authorities since, 1994, itself and the D. I. O. S. also passed the orders dated 13. 7. 1994 and 29. 1. 1996 in favour of the petitioner, copies of which have been annexed as annexures-5 and 6 to this writ petition. Petitioner has also annexed the letter dated 7. 8. 1994 written by Sri Babu Khan, M. L. A. Shahabad, to the Honble Education Minister, who has also made an endorsement in favour of the petitioner. The District inspector of Schools has rightly written letter to the Manager of College to handover the charge to the petitioner who was at the relevant time was next to the senlormost teacher. i. e. , opposite party No. 4. ( 7 ) SENIORITY plays a dominant role in the matter of ad hoc appointment to the post of principal/head Master in the institution and ordinarily, the seniormost teacher in the lecturer grade is to be appointed by promotion to the post of principal. The principal is not required to teach the students only but in fact he has to run the institution. The Judgment in Satyavir Singh v. D. I. O. S. . 1995 ALR 139. The principal is not required to teach the students only but in fact he has to run the institution. The Judgment in Satyavir Singh v. D. I. O. S. . 1995 ALR 139. Is fully applicable in the instant case and the said view was taken by this Court on the basis of the Judgment passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 141 of 1993. Smt. Suresh Kakkad v. Regional inspectress of Girls Schools, where it was held by the division Bench that once the seniormost teacher is permitted to function as officiating principal of the institution but either he declines to accept the post or after accepting the post, submits his resignation, he cannot claim his right to function as officiating principal. In the Full Bench case of Radha Raijada and others v. Committee of Management. (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551 . It was held that the senlormost teacher of the college has preferential right for promotion to the post of ad hoc principal and the controversy which is in the present case. i. e. . once the seniormost teacher has resigned from the post of officiating principal, may be considered again for appointment as ad hoc principal, was not before the Full Bench in Radha Raijadas case. ( 8 ) THE judgment cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 i. e. . Committee of management v. District inspector of Schools, Basti and others (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 9 ) IN the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the resolution dated 23rd September, 1994 by which opposite party No. 4 was appointed as ad hoc principal of the college, a copy of which has been filed by the opposite parties as Annexure-CA-3 to the counter-affidavit. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued directing the opposite party No. 2 to implement its own order dated 13. 7. 1994 and 29. 1. 1996. Opposite party No. 3 is also directed to pass the resolution. as directed by the District inspector of Schools. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. .