Bhanu Pratap Singh vs State of U.P.and others

Amarbir Singh Gill, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 5 and Sri S.K. Mehrotra for opposite party no. 7. No notice need be issued to the Committee of Management at this stage.

This petition is being disposed of at this stage as no contentious issues are involved in this case and more so in the interest of smooth working of the institution. The grievance of the petitioner is that incumbent to the post of Principal, Ram Lochan Inter College, Shivpal, Ambedkar Nagar retired on 30698 and the Committee of Management vide resolution dated 21698 as contained in Annexure2 to the writ petition, appointed the petitioner as acting Principal of the institution and forwarded his case for approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner also took charge on 1798. In the meantime on 7798 the District Inspector of Schools summoned the service records of various Lecturers of the institution and vide his order dated 9798, copy of which is Annexure1 and impugned in this petition, considered that opposite party no.7 being senior most lecturer should be treated as officiating Principal and also attested his signature. Against this order of the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner Bhanu Pratap Singh, who was appointed officiating Principal by the Committee of Managment, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of District Inspector of Schools mainly on the ground that the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to decide the seniority inter se of the Lecturers for the purposes of adhoc appointment on the post of Principal and it is the Regional Deputy Director of Education who is competent to decide such matters. The procedure for filling up vacancy of Principal by adhoc appointment has been given in section 4 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 which provides that in case of vacancy for the post of head of the institution, the same be filled by promotion of senior most teacher in the Lecturer''s grade. It is thus obligatory on the part of the Committee of Managment to appoint senior most Lecturer only as officiating Principal on adhoc basis. The resolution of the Committee of Management, copy of which is annexure2, does not indicate that the petitioner is the senior most Lecturer rather it is mentioned that inter se seniority of the Lecturers is yet to be determined and the name of the petitioner was suggested for the post of officiating Principal. In the writ petition as well the petitioner nowhere asserts or refers to his seniority or claims that he is senior most Lecturer in the institution. It is itself the case of the petitioner that the District Inspector of Schools after receipt of the record from the Committee of Management for approval of petitioner''s appointment as officiating Principal, summoned the service record of the Lecturers of the Institution and on the basis of the same determined that opposite party no. 7 was senior most and as such directed that he should be considered as officiating Principal on the basis of seniority. It appears that the District Inspector of Schools has not transgressed his jurisdiction in any manner when the letter of the Committee of Management seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Principal on adhoc basis did not indicate if he was the senior most Lecturer. There is no provision in the Act or Removal of Difficulties Order as aforesaid that any person can be appointed as officiating Principal irrespective of the fact that he is not a senior most teacher. It is no doubt true that the Depgty Director of Education is empowered to decide the dispute regarding inter se seniority of the Lecturers for the purposes of appointment on promotion as Principal. Such a recourse can be made by the aggrieved Lecturer. In the circumstances, this petition does not indicate any, vested right with the petitioner to seek his appointment on the post of Principal on the basis of his seniority in the absence of which no direction in the nature of mandamus can be issued. This petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

(Petition dismissed)