Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2520 (ALL)

MAHATAM SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-08-18

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner is admittedly the senior most teacher in the lecturer grade in the institution. The petitioner was working in the institution when two other teachers, who were senior to him, namely Surya Prasad Singh and Suresh Bahadur Singh were claiming to function as officiating principals upon the retirement of the permanent principal Prem Bahadur Singh. The fact that the vacancy occurred on 30th June, 2000 is not disputed and the same vacancy continues to exist is also not disputed. 3. It appears that in a dispute between Surya Prasad Singh and Suresh Bahadur Singh, the Committee of Management took a decision to handover the charge of officiating principal to the respondent No. 4-Rajendra Prasad Upadhyaya. Accordingly, the respondent No. 4 was appointed as officiating principal and his signatures were attested on 4th July, 2000. 4. It appears that thereafter, the dispute between Surya Prasad Singh and Suresh Bahadur Singh could not be resolved and both of them retired, whereafter the petitioner is stated to have staked his claim for the first time for allowing him to work as officiating principal on 10th July, 2003. According to the petitioner, this request was sent to the District Inspector of Schools. 5. From the counter-affidavit, it appears that the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia on 7th October, 2003 re-attested the signatures of the respondent No. 4 keeping in view the financial sanction of the Accounts Officer dated 2.11.2002. 6. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner continued to pursue his matter and ultimately the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 12.12.2007 on the ground that since the respondent No. 4 is already continuing for the past more than seven years, therefore, it will not be appropriate to upturn the said arrangement. Sri Khare contends that under the Regulations, the petitioner being the senior most teacher of the institution, which fact is undisputed, it is he who is entitled to officiate as principal. It is further submitted that the petitioner never waived his claim nor had he acquiesced to such appointment and the attestation of the signature of the respondent No. 4 was only a temporary arrangement. It is further submitted that the petitioner never waived his claim nor had he acquiesced to such appointment and the attestation of the signature of the respondent No. 4 was only a temporary arrangement. He further submits that so long as Surya Prasad Singh and Suresh Bahadur Singh were in service and they were senior to the petitioner, the petitioner did not have any right to claim appointment as officiating principal. After they retired, the petitioner immediately claimed officiation in the year 2003. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand invited the attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit to contend that at no stage did the petitioner ever had any objection with regard to the continuance of the respondent No. 4 as ad hoc principal of the institution. The signatures that were attested will hold the field and in the absence of any such claim having been raised, it will not be possible to upturn the status of the respondent No. 4 as it can be presumed that the petitioner had acquiesced to the arrangement. 8. Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner earlier filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60408 of 2007 (Mahatam Singh v. District Inspector of Schools and others), which was moved after seven years of the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as officiating principal without challenging the orders of the attestation of the signatures of the respondent No. 4 as indicated hereinabove. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the District Inspector of Schools by that time had issued a notice to the parties to submit their representations. 9. The allegation on behalf of the respondent No. 4 is also to the effect that the petitioner between 2004 to 2007 did not take any steps to stake his claim, which is being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On this count, it is contended that the said writ petition was only a device to somehow the other mitigate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that between the year 2000-03, the petitioner did not raise any protest nor did he challenge the orders of the attestation of the signature of the respondent No. 4 as a principal of the institution. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that between the year 2000-03, the petitioner did not raise any protest nor did he challenge the orders of the attestation of the signature of the respondent No. 4 as a principal of the institution. Even otherwise, if the respondent No. 4 was junior to the petitioner then the petitioner ought to have challenged the same, inasmuch as, there is no dispute that the petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4, therefore, continued as a Principal without any demur. The petitioner not having challenged the same, he will be presumed to have acquiesced to the appointment of the respondent No. 4 and the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Apart from this, the said orders are not even under challenge in the present writ petition as well. 11. Not only this it is the same vacancy and same officiating appointment which continues to exist till today. 12. In this view of the matter and keeping in view the fact that the respondent No. 4 has been continued as ad hoc principal for the past more than 10 years, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief on the ground of latches and acquiescence on his part as indicated hereinabove. 13. In view of this, I see no reason to exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. ————