Back
1993 Supreme(All) 721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.R.K. TRIVEDI, J.
Pramod Kumar Jindal - Appellant
Versus
District Inspector Of Schools And Others - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No's. 28693 and 29126 of 1993
Decided on : 13-10-1993
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.K. Yog, adv
The ad-hoc appointment of the principal of an educational institution should be based solely on seniority, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, to avoid disputes and ensure a smooth transition until a regular appointment is made.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION AND SELECTION BOARD ACT, 1982 - SECTION 18 - AD-HOC APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL - SENIORITY - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - AD-HOC APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL BASED ON SENIORITY LIST - DISTURBANCE OF SENIORITY LIST - REGULAR APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL - COMMISSION'S OR BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION - COURT'S DIRECTION TO ALLOW SENIOR MOST LECTURER TO CONTINUE AS AD-HOC PRINCIPAL UNTIL REGULAR APPOINTMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over the office of the head of Janta Inter College, Kharkhaunda, Meerut, arose due to the retirement of the principal, leading to a conflict between the committee of management and the teachers regarding the appointment of an ad-hoc principal. The committee of management favored Desh Raj Singh, while a group of teachers supported Pramod Kumar Jindal, claiming seniority.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the amended Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, which provided that the vacancy in the post of principal should be filled by promoting the senior-most teacher in the lecturer's grade. The court observed that the legislature intended to avoid disputes and bring an end to the maneuverings of junior teachers and the management to deny the chance of ad-hoc appointment as principal to the senior teacher.
Issues: 1. Interpretation of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, regarding the ad-hoc appointment of the principal based on seniority. 2. Validity of the seniority list prepared by the committee of management and its impact on the ad-hoc appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amended Section 18 of the Act clearly laid down the criterion of seniority for making ad-hoc arrangements for the office of the head of the institution, leaving no room for the committee of management or educational authorities to exercise discretion. 2. The court emphasized that the seniority list of 1989, which was already signed by all the lecturers, could not be ignored based on an alleged list prepared in June 1993 that was not finalized by the committee of management. 3. The court rejected the argument that Pramod Kumar Jindal lacked the necessary qualification for the office of the principal, stating that his qualification would be subject to scrutiny by the Commission or the Board while recommending the name for regular appointment.
Final Decision: The court directed that Pramod Kumar Jindal, the senior-most lecturer, be allowed to continue as the ad-hoc principal of Janta Inter College, Kharkhaunda, until a candidate is selected and recommended by the Commission or the Board for regular appointment. The court clarified that this decision was based solely on the seniority list of 1989 and would not affect the committee of management's or educational authorities' determination of seniority or assessment of suitability for regular appointment as principal.
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.
The controversy in both the aforesaid writ petitions is with regard to the office of the head of the institution, namely Janta Inter College, Kharkhaunda, district Meerut (hereinafter referred to as College) and the Petitioner in the first petition is also Petitioner no. 3 in the second petition and common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, hence both the writ petitions can be disposed of conveniently together by a common judgment. Learned counsel for parties in both the petitions have agreed that the petition may be decided finally at this stage.
2. Writ petition No. 28693 of 1993 was initially disposed of finally with certain directions by order dated 6-7-1993. However, Respondent no. 3 in that petition filed Special Appeal No. Nil of 1993 which was allowed on 18-8-1993 and the order dated 6-7-1993 as well as the order dated 9-7-1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools as a consequence thereof were set aside, and the case has been sent back for passing fresh orders after hearing parties. In this petition a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that Petitioner does not want to file rejoinder affidavit.
3. The relief claimed in this writ petition is that Respondent no. 1. District Inspector of Schools, may be directed to decide the representations filed by the president of the committee of management which are Annexures 8, 9 and 13 to the writ petition after hearing parties in accordance with law at the earliest. The second relief sought in the writ petition is that Respondents may be directed not to interfere in the working of the Petitioner as ad-hoc principal after 1-7-1993 The representation, Annexure VIII, dated 28-4-1993 has been filed by Mahabir Prasad Tyagi, president of the committee of management of the College, wherein it has been stated that the principal of the College Shri Om Prakash Sharma shall retire on 30-6-1993 and it has been learnt that the Manager in collusion with Om Prakash Sharma wants to give charge of the office of the principal to Desh Raj Singh, Respondent no. 3 who is at the serial no. 5 in the seniority list, which is wholly illegal and the committee of management is also being kept in dark about this activity. Prayer has been made that Petitioner Pramod Kumar Jindal, lecturer in Physics is a senior most lecturer and he should be allowed to officiate as principal of the College and his legitimate rights may not be allowed to be violated. Annexure 9 is a representation of the same by the Petitioner and the contents and the prayer made are substantially the same as of Annexure 8. Annexure 13 dated 2-7-1993 is an application of Petitioner addressed to Respondent no. 1 inviting his attention towards a news item published in Hindi Daily “Daink Jagran” of 2-7-1993 alleging that Respondent no. 3 has been given charge of the office of principal on 30-6-1993. It has been further stated that when Petitioner reached the College at 7.00 A. M. the College was found locked and it was opened upto 10.00 A.M. It has been prayed that the presence of the Petitioner may be marked in the office of Respondent no. 1 and it has also been prayed that he being the senior most lecturer may be given charge of the office of the principal.
4. Writ petition No. 29126 of 1993 has been filed by the committee of management of the College through president and Swaraj Singh Tyagi, Petitioner no. 2 treasurer of the committee of management of the College, and Pramod Kumar Jindal who is already Petitioner in the first petition. The relief sought in this writ petition is to quash the seniority list signed by the Respondent no. 4 manager of the college and submitted along with representation dated 5-7-1993. Annexure 12 to the writ petition. It has also been prayed that Respondents nos. 3 and 4 be restrained from interfering with the working of the Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid seniority list and for a directi
