Krishna Gopal Dixit vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—This petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 3.8.1996 issued by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, copy of which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the Respondent No. 4 not to interfere in the functioning of the Petitioner as Principal of Janta Inter College, Birhuni, district Etawah.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Ashok Khare, learned standing counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and also learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7.

The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher and later on promoted as permanent Lecturer in the institution in 1974. The permanent Principal Sri Gopi Nath Pandey retired on 30.6.1989 and the Petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1989 as ad hoc Principal by the Manager vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It is stated in Paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the Petitioner assumed charge of the office of the Principal on 1.7.1989 and since then has been working as such. His signature has been attested by the D.I.O.S. vide Annexure 2. The Committee of Management also passed a resolution dated 14.6.1992 vide Annexure 3 to the petition resolving to accord ad hoc appointment to the Petitioner as Principal of the Institution from 1.7.1989 and the D.I.O.S. has granted approval to this resolution on 1.10.1992 vide Annexure 4. The Petitioner claims that he is entitled for regularisation u/s 33A of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982 as amended in 1991.

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No. 7, Sri M. K. Gupta who claims to be the person selected by the Commission. In Paragraph 8 of the same, it is alleged that there is a difference between the Acting or Officiating Principal and ad hoc Principal. In my opinion, there is no difference between acting or officiating Principal and ad hoc Principal. Once the permanent Principal retires, then the senior-most teacher is ordinarily entitled to be appointed as ad hoc Principal in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551. I am further of the opinion that the Petitioner was entitled for regularisation u/s 33A in view of the 1991 amendment to the Act which came into force on 6.4.1991 vide Smt. Santosh Jain v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Ors. 1992 (1) UPLBEC 129.

Hence I hold that the Petitioner has been regularised u/s 33A as Principal of the Institution. The petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 3.8.1996 is quashed. The Respondents are restrained from interfering with the functioning of the Petitioner as Principal of the institution in question.