SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(All) 1615

[2008(7) ADJ 617 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK BHUSHAN AND ARUN TANDON, JJ.
M.K. BAJPAI .........Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .........Respondents
(Special Appeal No. 855 of 2008, decided on 29th July, 2008)

Advocates:
Counsel :
R.K. Ojha and Alok Dwivedi for the Appellant; P.S. Baghel and S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:Appointment—Post of Officiating Principal—Appellant being seniormost lecturer appointed on this post—By an order passed by District Inspector of Schools respondents 6 declared as seniormost lecturer—Hence, petition against by appellant—Allowed, declaring him to be senior-most to respondent-6, and to work as officiating Principal—However subsequently, Committee of Management of College, suspended him—And initiated disciplinary proceedings—However, that suspension was subsequently, withdrawn—But C.O.M. resolved that appellant should function as a Lecturer, and not as an officiating Principal—However, D.I.O.S. permitted him to function as officiating Principal—But, now question arose about age of appellant as 60 years, or 62 years, or Lecturer, or officiating Principal—Held, impugned order of D.D.E. and of D.I.O.S. shall remain stayed—And appellant allowed to continue as officiating/Ad hoc Principal, till any contrary decision is taken by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. [Paras 3, 4, 23 and 24]

       

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, assisted by Sri Alok Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 as well as learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1 to 4.

2. This is an appeal against the order dated 25.6.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition filed by the appellant petitioner. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are; that L.P. Inter College, Kanpur Nagar is a recognised aided Intermediate College. The Principal of the institution retired on 30.6.2003. The appellant was appointed as Officiating Principal of the institution being senior most Lecturer and started functioning. The District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 13.1.2004, declaring the respondent No. 6 as senior most Lecturer and directing that respondent No. 6 will function as Officiating Principal. The appellant filed writ petition No. 1979 of 2004, which was allowed by this Court on 27.2.2004, declaring the appellant senior to respondent No. 6 and holding the appellant to be entitled to work as Officiating Principal. The appellant was thereafter permitted to function as Officiating Principal. However, the Committee of Management in the year 2006 suspended the appellant and initiated disciplinary proceedings. The suspension was subsequently withdrawn by the Committee of Management and it was resolved that appellant shall not function as Officiating Principal but will function as Lecturer. The District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 2.3.2007, directing the Committee of Management to permit the appellant to function as Officiating/ad hoc Principal. The Committee of Management filed writ petition No. 14860 of 2007, challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools, which writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 15.6.2007, holding that till the resolution of the Committee of Management relieving the appellant from the post of Officiating/ad hoc Principal was approved by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, the appellant was entitled to function as Officiating Principal of the institution. The date of birth of appellant is 8.7.1947. Normal age of retirement of a teacher is 62 years provided, a teacher whose date of birth falls during an academic session, is entitled to continue till the end of academic session. The Government orders including the Government order dated 17.2.1999 provides an option for those teachers who want to retire at the age of 60 years so as to be entitled to gratuity, may submit option one year before the retirement by 1st July of the academic session in which date of retirement falls. The appellant made an application on 24.5.2007, opting for retirement at the age of 60 years as Officiating Principal of the institution. The option was forwarded by the Committee of Management which was countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools on 13.7.2007. The appellant wrote a letter on 16.7.2007, praying for withdrawal of his option so as to permit him to continue till 62 years i.e. till 30.6.2010. An order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 23.4.2008, taking the view that since the appellant’s option of retirement at the age of 60 years has been accepted and further the resolution of reversion of appellant has been sent to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, the respondent No. 6 is approved as Officiating Principal of the institution. The order dated 23.4.2008 was challenged by the appellant by means of writ petition No. 23150 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court on 8.5.2008 directing the Deputy Director of Education to decide as to whether the option of the appellant for retirement at the age of 60 years was accepted in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prabha Kakkar v. Joint Director of Education, Kanpur, 2000 (2) UPLBEC 1378. In pursuance of the


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top