HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Palok Basu, R.K.Mahajan
GOVIND SINGH NIRANJAN
Versus
D I O S JALAUN AT ORAL
Decided On : 20 September 1996
C. M. W. R No. 19557 of 1996; C. M. W. R No. 20551 of 1996
EDUCATION - U. P. HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION ACT, 1980 - SECTION 12. 20 - INTERPRETATION - APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL - REGULAR SELECTION - AD HOC APPOINTMENT - REMOVAL - FAIR PROCEDURE - SALARY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ad hoc officiating Principal of a college, challenged his removal from the post and non-payment of salary for the period of his officiation. The respondent, the college management, appointed another person as the Principal, claiming the right to do so under the relevant statute.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's removal was illegal and quashed the impugned notifications. It directed the management to continue the petitioner as the officiating Principal until a regular selection was made and ordered the Commission to complete the selection process within four months. The court also directed the management to pay the petitioner all the emoluments of the officiating Principal for the period of his working.
Issues: 1. Whether the management had the right to remove the petitioner as the officiating Principal without following fair procedure and without making a regular selection? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the salary of the Principal during his officiation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 12. 20 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, which provides for the appointment of a Principal in case of a vacancy. It held that the statute empowers the management to appoint an officiating Principal for a period of three months or until the appointment of a regular Principal, whichever is earlier. However, the court emphasized that this provision should be interpreted in light of the circumstances and the principles of fairness and natural justice. 2. The court held that the petitioner, who had officiated as the Principal for more than four years, had acquired a right to continue in the position until a regular selection was made. It reasoned that the petitioner had performed the duties of the Principal and was entitled to the emoluments of the post.
Final Decision: The court allowed both writ petitions filed by the petitioner and quashed the impugned notifications. It directed the management to continue the petitioner as the officiating Principal until a regular selection was made and ordered the Commission to complete the selection process within four months. The court also directed the management to pay the petitioner all the emoluments of the officiating Principal for the period of his working.
This order will dispose of two Writ Petitions No. 19557of 19% and 20651 of 1966 and they pertain with respect to the controversy of same subject-matter i. e. non- interference in the working of duty as a Principal of the D. V. Post Graduate College, Jalaun and stoppage of salary from March, 1996 to May, 1996. These two writ petitions have raised a very interesting question and would show how management of U. P. Educational Institu tions and how the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission is fur "zoning and how the system with respect 01 regular recruit ment of the Principal has failed for want of indifferences and listless attitude of the management and the authorities who con trol the
functioning of the colleges. This question also involves the interpretation of Statute 12. 20. Statute 12. 20 is quoted below for advantage:
"12. 20.-When the office of the principal of an affiliated college falls vacant, the Management may appoint any teacher to officiate as Principal for a period of three months or until the appoint ment of a regular principal, whichever is earlier. If on or before the expiry of the period of three months, any regular principal is not appointed, or such a Principal does not assume office, the senior most teacher in the college shall officiate as Principal of such college until a regular principal is appointed. "
2. In these two writ petitions again the interesting point which arises is that if a senior most teacher including the present claimant who do not want to shoulder the responsibility when there is a trouble in the college and they are unable to control and a junior person offered himself to officiate as Principal and the officiated for four years and then the respondent No. 4 in writ peti tion No. 20651 of 1996 Dr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, who is now senior most person and previously in disturbed times he resigned and when the peace was restored he offers join and Management Committee gives him posting without regular selection and the present incumbent the petitioner is shunted out. How far it would be legal and justified to give him (Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava) appointment who is a senior most teacher when he ran from the war field like a coward man or like deserted soldier and later on when the peace was restored would it be in all fairness and propriety to give him appointment by the Management without a regular selection who had lacked the courage to handle the situation at that time. Is it a fair procedure and justice to remove an ad hoc officiating Principal after four years without a regular selection and substitute a person like a king who ran away when the Rome was burning and expressed his inability serve the institution in that capacity. Is he not stopped by his act and conduct and what discipline he would teach to the students and how he would control of the affairs.
3. These two writ petitions would per tain to these questions as well as other provisions of the Act. Law is not divorced from realities of life and while interpreting law it should be interpreted taking into con sideration new situation and to mould the relief as sometime Legislature or law makers do not foresee all possibilities/con tingencies.
4. Now coming over to the facts of the case. Resume of facts of Writ Petition No. 19557 of 1995 are as under:
5. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature temporary quashing the order dated 27-5-1996 (Annexure- No. 9) passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order dated 31-5-1996 passed by the respondent No. 3
and praying further that the petitioner be paid salary in the grade or Principal which he has been getting since 23-5-1992 along with ar rears of salary for the months of March, April and May, 1996 and further prayer has been made for regularisation of service of the petitioner as Principal.
6. Annexure No. 9 is a letter from Dis trict Inspector of Schools to the Manage ment Committee that Dr. Govind Singh Niranjas bill would be passed according to the grade of Le
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.