Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR & R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Vishnu Sharan Pandey – Appellant
Vs.
Joint Dir. of Education – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9097 of 2014 & Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 21003 of 2006
Decided On : 23.9.2014
Recovery of the entire salary paid - Challenging the order of District Inspector of Schools – Passed by Joint Director of Education - Accordingly District Inspector of Schools Peoria heard Respondents and upon perusal of representation and documents produced by them by Order ordered that Respondent being senior most lecturer of college is entitled to take charge as officiating principal Challenging order of District Inspector of Schools and claiming that he being senior is entitled to take charge as officiating principal Appellant filed appeal before Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur - Joint Director of Education afforded opportunity to Appellant and also heard and thereafter, passed a detailed, – Held, Since Order passed by Joint Director of Education was under challenge in it is not known whether various orders pertaining to appointment of Appellant were placed on record before High Court - It appears that High Court had not gone into nuances of spate of litigations between Appellant and Management and effect of orders passed in those litigations - Any finding on correctness of Appellants appointment seriously affects right of Appellant - While High Court proceeded to examine correctness of order in our view High Court ought to have called upon parties to produce all materials pertaining to earlier litigations and examined effect of those orders on appointment of Appellant – Court find many issues arising between parties remain unanswered and many areas remaining obscure - Upon consideration of rival submissions and materials following among other issues arise for consideration whether subject Sociology was then a recognized subject Respondent college and whether Appellant was appointed in a substantive post effect of decree and orders passed in Case No passed by Deputy Director of Education and order passed by District Inspector of Schools whether Order acted upon by all concerned including Respondent-management and authorities and whether said order has attained finality as contended by Appellant whether Appellant has been actually working In result impugned order dated passed by the High Court in CMWP is set aside and appeal is allowed - Matter is remitted back to High Court for consideration of matter afresh in the light of the above discussion - High Court shall afford an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and proceed with matter afresh - Considering age of Appellant and fact that the writ petition is of court request High Court to expedite hearing and dispose of same at an early date preferably within a period of nine months from date of receipt of copy of this Order - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
R. BANUMATHI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of judgment dated 15.11.2006 passed by the Allahabad High Court in CMWP No. 8512 of 2002 in and by which the High Court has quashed the Order dated 4.2.2002 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur and held that the 3rd Respondent was senior to the Appellant for holding the post of adhoc Principal and also held that the Order dated 4.2.1991 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, as relied upon by the Appellant is a fraudulent one and directing recovery of the entire salary paid to him for the period subsequent to 24.7.1976.
3. Appellant claims to have been appointed on temporary basis as a Lecturer in Sociology in 5th Respondent-college on 1.10.1972 and was appointed in the substantive post on 1.01.1973. The appointment of the Appellant as a Lecturer in Sociology and his continuance had a chequered career for about two decades. CMWP No. 8512 of 2002 was filed by the Appellant in the High Court, mainly raising the issue of seniority for holding the post of adhoc Principal of the 5th Respondent college. Dr. Lalloo Pathak, Principal of 5th Respondent-Inter College died on 13.6.1999, while still in service and on his demise, the post of principal became vacant from 13.6.1999. The Managing Committee by its Resolution No. 2 dated 13.6.1999, decided to appoint the senior most lecturer, Sri Lal Mohan Singh-4th Respondent, on the post of principal on adhoc basis and the same was sent to the authorities for approval. The Managing Committee of 5th Respondent-college changed its earlier resolution dated 13.06.1999 and sent another decision appointing 3rd Respondent-Dr. Prem Sunder Singh as the officiating principal and thus the matter of appointment on the vacant post of principal has been under dispute. A Writ Petition No. 39747 of 1999 was filed by Dr. Prem Sunder Singh in the Allahabad High Court and the High Court directed the parties to approach the concerned authorities. Accordingly, District Inspector of Schools, Deoria heard 3rd and 4th Respondents and upon perusal of the representation and the documents produced by them by Order dated 21.10.1999, ordered that Sri Lal Mohan Singh-4th Respondent being the senior most lecturer of the college is entitled to take charge as officiating principal.
4. Challenging the order of District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and claiming that he being the senior is entitled to take charge as officiating principal, the Appellant filed appeal before the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur. The Joint Director of Education afforded opportunity to the Appellant and also heard 3rd and 4thRespondents and thereafter, passed a detailed order dated 4.2.2002, declaring that the 3rd Respondent-Dr. Prem Sunder Singh is the senior most lecturer in 5th Respondent-college and is entitled to hold the charge as officiating principal. The above Order of the Joint Director of Education dated 4.2.2002 was challenged by the Appellant in CMWP No. 8512 of 2002, contending that he is senior to Respondents 3 and 4 and claiming that he is entitled to hold the post of adhoc principal in 5th Respondent college. In the writ petition, the High Court had gone into the question of legality of the appointment of the Appellant and his continuance as a Lecturer of Sociology in 5th Respondent-college and observed that the Appellant was able to obtain a fraudulent order dated 4.02.1991, on the basis of which he has been receiving salary from the State. On the above findings, the High Court directed the Appellant to refund the entire salary paid to him for the period subsequent to 24.7.1976 and in case the same is not refunded, the same was to be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue.
5. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition was the question of seniority of the rival parties as to, who was to be appointed as adhoc principal in 5th Respondent college. Theref
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
