Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 842 (UTT)

Madhusudan Arya v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-17

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a Headmaster of a private Junior Higher Secondary School known as Janta Higher Secondary School, Kakodakhal, District Rudraprayag. According to the petitioner, he was working as a Headmaster in the said school since 1989, which was subsequently upgraded to Higher Secondary School in the year 1998 and came under grant-in-aid vide order dated 06.10.2006 where the petitioner has been shown as the Headmaster of the said school with two Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade and three Attendants (Paricharak). 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by two orders dated 20.12.2013 and 06.01.2014. The order dated 20.12.2013 is the order by which the Committee of Management had passed a resolution to take away the charge of Headmaster from the petitioner, which has now been given to respondent no.8. The order dated 06.01.2014 is of the Chief Education Officer by which the vacancy of Headmaster has to be filled by way of direct recruitment. These two orders have been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. 3. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that he has been performing the duties of the Headmaster in the said school right from the very inception i.e. from the year 1989. In the year 1998, this school was upgraded and since then he has been performing the duties of the Headmaster. Later on, this school came under grant-in-aid in the year 2006. Therefore, categorical assertion of the petitioner would be that he cannot be treated as an officiating Headmaster of the school but as a regular Headmaster. 4. This, however, has been denied by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 8 and 9 as well as learned State counsel. 5. There are allegations and counter allegations made in the writ petition and counter affidavit as to the conduct of the petitioner and the Management Committee. As per the Committee of Management, the petitioner on his own has given a letter to the Committee of Management that he is not able to perform the duties of a Headmaster and he should be assigned duties of an Assistant Teacher only. On his personal request, the charge of Headmaster was taken away and he was permitted to perform duties of Assistant Teacher only. However, by an interim order of this Court dated 01.09.2016 the petitioner has been performing the duties of Headmaster. 6. On his personal request, the charge of Headmaster was taken away and he was permitted to perform duties of Assistant Teacher only. However, by an interim order of this Court dated 01.09.2016 the petitioner has been performing the duties of Headmaster. 6. As far as the resolution dated 20.12.2013 passed by the Committee of Management is concerned, which is for taking away the charge of Headmaster from the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The resolution shall not be given any effect to it, as the case of the petitioner is that his earlier letter for refraining to do the work of Headmaster, was under duress and harassment. The admitted fact is that petitioner is the senior teacher in the Institute. Respondent no. 8 is far junior to the petitioner and there are no charges against the petitioner which may warrant the strong action of taking away the charge of Headmaster from the petitioner. The petitioner shall continue to perform his duties on the post of Headmaster. 7. However, as far as, the question of the petitioner being the regular Headmaster of the school is concerned, since there is no clarity on this aspect, the writ petition stands disposed with the direction to the Chief Education Officer concerned to look into this aspect and give a finding by passing a speaking order therein as to the correct status of the petitioner. Chief Education Officer shall also look into every aspect and claim of the petitioner, including the fact that he has been working since 1989 as a Headmaster in the Junior High School i.e. from the very inception in the school. Thereafter, he has also been working as a Headmaster since its up-gradation in the year 1998 and has been declared as Headmaster since the school came under the grant-in-aid in the year 2006. This aspect shall be considered by the Chief Education Officer while giving finding on the status of the petitioner. 8. Subject to the above findings given to the Chief Education Officer, appropriate steps be taken. In case the finding is that the petitioner was never a regular Headmaster then proceeding be made in accordance with law to fill up the vacancy of Headmaster as early as possible. 9. The writ petition stands disposed in the terms and direction as given above.