Sankatha Prasad Mishra vs Authorised Controller, Sri Motilal Nehru Inter College and Others

R.H. Zaidi, J.—In the aforesaid petitions, common questions of facts and law were involved. They were consequently directed to be connected and listed together on 20.10.90 and 4.9.91. In compliance of the aforesaid orders, petitions were listed for hearing.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for Respondents as well as learned standing counsel.

The writ petition No. 26568 of 1990 has been filed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.8.90 passed by Respondent No. 1.

The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition No. 26568 of 90 are that there is an educational institution known as Sri Moti Lai Nehru Intermediate College at Besupur, Ghazipur (hereinafter referred as the college). On retirement of Sri Ram Murtl Pandey on 30.6.88, the post of Principal fell vacant. According to the case set up in the present petition, the Committee of Management without notifying the vacancy to the Commission and without following the procedure prescribed under the law, appointed one Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey, Respondent No. 3 as Principal on ad hoc basis. It is stated that Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey was junior to the Petitioner and was otherwise not qualified to be appointed as Principal of the College. The District Inspector of Schools did not accord approval to the appointment of Respondent No. 3 and vide his order dated 5.9.88 has asked the management to forward the name of the Petitioner for his appointment as officiating Principal. Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey challenged the validity of order dated 5.9.88 and filed writ petition No. 17887 of 1988. It is stilted that by misstating and suppressing the facts, Respondent No. 3 has succeeded in obtaining the interim order dated 16.9.88 from this Court which reads as under:

Issue notice.

Meanwhile the operation of the inpugned order dated 5.9.88 shall remain stayed.

The said order dated 16.9.88 is in operation till date.

During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey filed another writ petition No. 19448 of 1989 in this Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur to pay the salary to the Petitioner for the post of Principal alongwith the arrears of salary and to go on paying salary month by month regularly. On the facts stated in the said writ petition, this Court was pleased to pass the following order on 2.11.80, which is quoted below:

Petitioner will serve a certified copy of our order on the Distt. Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur who will either pay salary to the Petitioner in case according to him, it is legally due or he shall show cause by filing counter-affidavit by 27.11.89. Petitioner will personally tender the certified copy of our order together with the copy of writ petition to the Distt. Inspector of Schools, who shall accept the same.

In the meanwhile, it appears that District Inspector of Schools acting as Authorised Controller by his order dated 24.6.90 appointed the Petitioner as officiating Principal of the College. Respondent No. 3 Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey approached this Court and filed writ petition No. 12704 of 1990 and again succeeded in obtaining the interim order in the following terms on 18.5.90:

Issue notice.

Meanwhile the operation of the order dated 26.4.90 (Annexure V to the writ petition) shall remain in abeyance.

List this application for orders on 18.7.90 before learned single Judge.

Thereafter, it appears that the Authorised Controller who was looking after the affairs of the College resigned from the post, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools with a view to safeguard the interest of teachers, students and institution appointed one Sri Harikesh Dube as officiating principal temporary till the final disposal of the matter pending in this Court. It was further ordered that in the evegt Harikesh Dube was not inclined to take charge of the office of the Principal, next senior-most teacher will take the charge of thesaid office. The said order further directed that in the event of the refusal by senior teachers to take the charge of the office of Principal, other teachers in order of seniority will be given the opportunity to hold the charge of Principal, till it is taken by some one.

Respondent No. 3 even on this occasion did not hesitate and challenged the order passed by District Inspector of Schools dated 27.7.90, filed writ petition No. 21303 of 1990. He has also succeeded in obtaining the following interim order from this Court:

List for admission. Summons be sent to the Respondents with the direction that they shall file a counter-affidavit within four weeks from the date of receipt of summons. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order dated 27.7.90 shall remain stayed and Petitioner''s functions as Principal in the College shall not be interfered.

Under the facts and circumstances stated above, Sri Jai Pal Singh Verma who was appointed as Authorised Controller of the college on 31.8.90 passed the following order:

Sri Sankatha Prasad Mishra has challenged the validity of the aforesaid order dated 31.8.90 by means of the present petition and prayed for quashing the same by a writ of certiorari as stated above. This Court vide its order dated 22.10.90 directed the present petition to be listed alongwith the abovenoted writ petitions and ultimately petition was admitted and connected with the said petitions on 4.2.1991.

From the record of the abovenoted cases, it transpires that on 2.2.93, this Court directed the present petition to be listed after decision of Full Bench in Writ Petition No. 18934 of 1991, Km. Radha Raizada v. C.M.V.D. Inter College and Ors. connected matters.

It would not be out of place to state that in the aforesaid cases, counter and rejoinder - affidavits were also exchanged and filed by the parties. In the counter - affidavit filed on behalf of the Dlstt. Inspector of Schools Authorised Controller in aforesaid petitions, it was specifically stated that the petitions filed by Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey referred to above, were based on suppression and mis-statement of the material facts. It was asserted that the vacancy in question was never notified In accordance with law nor any publication of the same was made in the newspaper. Respondents have also asserted that the appointment of Shiv Shanker Pandey as Principal of the College made was contrary to the provision of law and that he was not qualified to be appointed as Principal of the College. In support of their assertions, the said Respondents have also filed the documentary evidence, which forms part of the record.

It is necessary to state that Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18934 of 1991 was dismissed by Full Bench of this Court on 19.10.1994. The decision in Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam and Another Vs. Rajesh alias Munna, .

Today, when the case was taken up, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey conceded that the decision of Full Bench has gone against his client and present petition was concluded by the decision of the Full Bench, therefore, the petitions filed by Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey were liable to be dismissed and the interim orders granted from time to time were also liable to be discharged.

The material facts which were suppressed and mis-stated by Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey have been stated in detail in the counter - affidavits filed on behalf of Respondents in his cases, therefore, I am not repeating the same here.

Still I will like to point out that it was falsely stated by Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey that vacancy in the office of Principal of the College was notified to the Commission and advertised in accordance with law and it was deliberately suppressed that he was simply C.T. grade music teacher in the College and was not qualified to be appointed as Principal of the College. Facts were mis-stated and suppressed with a view to mislead this Court in all aforesaid petitions with a view to obtain favourable orders.

Before 1 part with the present case, I would-like to say that the filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions based on mis-statement and suppression of facts, obtaining of interim orders by deceiving and defrauding this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution and thereafter getting the writ petitions dismissed does not end the matter. In Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, and Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , Supreme Court has ruled that the suppression and misstatement amounts to criminal contempt particularly when the Petitioner deceived and defrauded the court and in this process interfered with the administration of justice.

Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey has deliberately suppressed and mis-stated the relevant facts in the aforesaid writ petitions and he had audacity to make false statements and to indulge in blatant falsehood repeatedly in most irresponsible manner, with a view to obtain favourable orders as stated above, it was a fit case to punish him for contempt of this Court. However, since learned Counsel for Petitioner has fairly conceded that the writ petitions filed by Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey were liable to be dismissed and did not waste precious time of the court. I do not consider it necessary to take any action for contempt of this Court. However, I would like to admonish him that in future he will mend his ways and will not attempt to mislead and defraud this Court. It would suffice and meet the ends of justice to impose costs against him, which I assess as Rs. 1,000 for each petition filed by him including the writ petition filed by Sri Sankatha Prasad Misra. The amount of costs will be paid by Sri Shiv Shanker Pandey to Sri Sankatha Prasad Misra in this case and to the College in other four connected petitions within a period of one month from today.

In the present petition No. 26568 of 1990, Petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 31.8.1990 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, whereby Shri Shiv Shanker Pandey was appointed as officiating Principal of the College. The claim of Shri Shiv Shanker Pandey has already been rejected and the petitions filed by him have already been dismissed with costs. The order dated 31.8.90 was passed on account of interim orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid petitions. The said petitions having been dismissed, the impugned order dated 31.8.90 is also liable to be quashed.

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition Nos. 17887 of 1988, 19943 of 1989, 12704 of 1990 and 21303 of 1990 filed by Shri Shiv Shanker Pandey are dismissed and the writ petition No. 26568 of 1990 filed by Sri Sankatha Prasad Misra is allowed with costs which has been assessed as indicated above. The order dated 31.8.90 passed by Respondent No. 1 is quashed. Interim order granted by this Court in the abovenoted case are hereby discharged.