JUDGMENT :

1. This Intra Court Appeal has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 27.5.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ (A) No. 5601 of 2022 (Vikas Jain v. State of U.P. and 5 others) whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by observing that once the appellant/petitioner refused to work on the post of Officiating Head Master, therefore, the charge was given to the Respondent No. 6, Smt. Monika. It was also observed that in between her term, she cannot be disturbed and the appellant/petitioner will have a right to raise his grievance for appointment on the post of Head Master in the Institution, once the term of Respondent No. 6 comes to an end.

2. The facts giving rise to the controversy involved in the present appeal is that the appellant/petitioner approached the learned Single Judge with the allegation that he is Senior Most Assistant Teacher in the Institution in question and vide order dated 17.5.2017 he was appointed as Officiating Head Master being the Senior Most Assistant Teacher and his signatures were duly attested by the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur. On 4.6.2020, the petitioner on account of some personal unavoidable circumstances expressed his inability to perform his duty as Officiating Head Master for a short period and requested the Manager of the Institution to assign the responsibilities of the post of Officiating Head Master to some other Assistant Teacher and he would continue to discharge his duties as Assistant Teacher in the Institution. The said letter dated 4.6.2020 is on record at Page No. 70 of the paper book.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid request of the appellant/petitioner, the charge of Officiating Head Master of the Institution was handed over to the Respondent No. 6, Smt. Monika. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the Manager to appoint him back as Officiating Head Master of the Institution but the said request was not adhered to by the Manager of the Institution and the petitioner was compelled to approach the learned Single Judge for issuance of the appropriate directions to the Respondent Authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Head Master in the Institution being the Senior Most Assistant Teacher in terms of the order dated 3.8.2021 of the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur.

4. The writ petition was resisted by the Assistant Director of Education, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur, as also the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur, by filing counter-affidavit stating therein that by letter dated 4.6.2020, a copy whereof has been filed at Page No. 147 of the paper book, the appellant/petitioner had clearly expressed that for the past three years he had been satisfactorily discharging the duties of Officiating Head Master of the Institution but presently on account of unavoidable reasons he is unable to perform his duties as Officiating Head Master and, accordingly, a request was made to hand over the charge to some other Assistant Teacher in the Institution. In the aforesaid letter dated 4.6.2020 relied upon by the appellant/petitioner the word ^^dqN le; ds fy,^^ is missing, which is annexed at Page No. 147. It was thus urged by the respondents that the appellant/petitioner had voluntarily tendered his resignation and in such view of the matter, he cannot be permitted to re-assume the charge as Officiating Head Master of the Institution.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge manifestly erred in law in not considering the case of the appellant/petitioner in the correct perspective and has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that once the petitioner refused to work on the post of Head Master and the charge had already been handed over to the Respondent No. 6 and the Respondent No. 6 was officiating on the post, it would not be appropriate to disturb the Respondent No. 6 till her term came to an