Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 336 (UTT)

YASHVIR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-07-13

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner is a Professor of Electronics and Communication Engineering in G.B. Pant Engineering College, Ghurdauri, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. Being the seniormost Professor in the college, he was also holding the charge of the Principal of the College, while the process was on for the selection of a regular Principal. This Court has also been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the College, Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, that as of now a person has already been selected and is likely to be appointed in due course. Meanwhile, by the impugned order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Uttarakhand, the charge of the Principal of the said college has been taken away from the petitioner and this charge has been given to the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal by the same order. 2. The main attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.C. Pant, is regarding the propriety of giving the charge of an educational institution, that too of an engineering college, to a District Magistrate, who has got nothing to do with the engineering college and normally a District Magistrate should not be given the charge of the Principal when other professors are available to take over the charge in the institution and secondly, there is no such emergent situation which would justify these powers being given to a District Magistrate, who is an outsider. 3. Prima facie, the contention of the petitioner appears to be correct. 4. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, learned Counsel appearing for the College as well as Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State could not bring to our notice any provision of law by which the charge of an acting Principal can be given to the District Magistrate, except clause 8 of the Bye-laws of the Society, which visualizes a different situation altogether. As per the opinion of this Court, such as a condition would be when administration cannot be run properly. The impugned order dated 17.05.2016 is in any case is a telegraphic order which does not disclose any reasons. 5. The learned counsel for the College has also apprised this Court that in all likelihood, a new incumbent will join in a very short time. 6. The impugned order dated 17.05.2016 is in any case is a telegraphic order which does not disclose any reasons. 5. The learned counsel for the College has also apprised this Court that in all likelihood, a new incumbent will join in a very short time. 6. Prima facie, this Court is satisfied that there is an apparent illegality in the impugned order as the charge of the Principal has not been given to another Professor but to the District Magistrate, who is an outsider. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the operation and effect of the impugned order dt 17/05/16, shall remain stayed. However, it is made clear that stay of the operation of the impugned order would not debar or restrict the State Government from passing any fresh order, during the pendency of the writ petition itself, giving charge of Principal to any other Professor, till the regularly selected Principal is duly appointed. In order to remove any confusion, the District Magistrate shall forthwith handover the charge to the petitioner within a period of two days from today, unless the State Government in terms of this order passes a fresh order giving charge to another Professor of the Institute. 8. Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. 9. List this case after three weeks. 10. Let certified copy of this order be issued within twenty-four hours on payment of usual charges.