Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3722 (ALL)

Babu Ram Pratap v. State of U. P.

2015-11-30

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT The appellant has been working with the fifth respondent which conducts an Intermediate College as an Assistant Teacher in Social Science since 17 January 2002. Upon retirement of a teacher who was holding the post of a Lecturer in History, the appellant staked his claim to the post. From the record, it appears that the sixth respondent, who is presently working in another educational institution at Ghaziabad, obtained a no objection of the Management for transfer to the Intermediate College of the fifth respondent. The District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 4 September 2015, set aside the action of the Management against which a writ petition (Writ Petition No.53410 of 2015) filed by the sixth respondent is pending. In the meantime, the Regional Level Committee, by an order dated 18 September 2015, directed the promotion of the appellant on the post of Lecturer in History and the District Inspector of Schools issued an order on 21 September 2015. This has been stayed by the learned Single Judge while entertaining a writ petition filed by the sixth respondent primarily on the ground that the order of promotion does not take into account an earlier decision of the District Inspector of Schools dated 8 May 2015. 2. The basic objection of the appellant to the grant of an interlocutory order is that such a direction could not have been issued nor, for that matter, could a petition be entertained at the behest of the sixth respondent who is an stranger to the Institution. 3. We are conscious of the fact that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 12 October 2015 is an interlocutory order and ordinarily, in a special appeal, the Court would be circumspect about interference with an interlocutory direction or order. However, having borne in mind this well settled position, we are nonetheless of the view that a fit and proper case has been made out for interference in the facts of the present case. 4. The promotion of the appellant to the post of Lecturer in History has been approved by the Regional Level Committee on 18 September 2015 under the fifty per cent promotion quota which is sought to be called into question by the sixth respondent who is a stranger to the Institution. 4. The promotion of the appellant to the post of Lecturer in History has been approved by the Regional Level Committee on 18 September 2015 under the fifty per cent promotion quota which is sought to be called into question by the sixth respondent who is a stranger to the Institution. The sixth respondent as on the date of this order, as indeed on the date of the order of the learned Single Judge is not a member of the teaching staff of the Institution. The sixth respondent had only obtained a no objection of the Management to his transfer to the Institution where the appellant is employed since 2002. Whether such a no objection could have been granted, is a subject matter of the writ petition which has been filed by the sixth respondent, which is admittedly pending. 5. Hence, at the present stage, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has erred in staying the promotion of the appellant in a writ petition filed by the sixth respondent who is not even a member of the Institution. 6. For these reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge staying the promotion of the appellant would need to be vacated. We, accordingly, allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 12 October 2015 to the extent that it stays the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 18 September 2015 promoting the appellant to the post of Lecturer in History and the consequential order dated 21 September 2015 of the District Inspector of Schools. However, we clarify that all the observations contained in the present order are confined to the disposal of the special appeal against the interlocutory order and shall not come in the way of the final disposal of the writ petition. 7. The special appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.