JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. The Vakalatnama filed by Sri R.D. Shahi on behalf of the respondent no. 7 is taken on record. The short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 7 is also taken on record.

2. Heard Sri G.C. Verma and Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.D. Shahi and Sri Ghanshyam Verma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 7.

3. The respondent no. 6 has been added without any basis, as such, he is scrolled off from the array of parties and in view of the documents submitted, there is no need to hear the respondent no. 5.

4. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25/28.07.2023 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition), whereby the respondent no. 7 has been given the charge of officiating Principal superseding the claim of the petitioner, as claimed by him.

5. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as an L.T. Grade Teacher on 03.02.2004 whereas the respondent no. 7 was appointed as an L.T. Grade Teacher on 07.12.2004. Subsequently, both the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 7 was promoted on 13.03.2012 to the post of Lecturer, however, the respondent no. 7 took the charge as a Lecturer on 13.03.2012 whereas the petitioner took the charge on 14.03.2012. The date of birth of the petitioner is 09.09.1970 and that of the respondent no. 7 is 05.08.1971.

6. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that in the institution in question, one Rajendra Prasad Sharma, the lecturer, was officiating as Principal and subsequently, on having expressed his inability to continue any further, a dispute arose in between the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 with regard to the claim for the post of officiating Principal in the institution in question. It is argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being senior to the respondent no. 7, was eligible for being recommended by the Committee of Management for appointment to the post of officiating Principal, which was done by the Committee of Management and on the recommendation so made, an order came to be passed on 30.09.2011 appointing the petitioner as an officiating Principal. The said order passed by the Committee of Management is on record (Annexure-18 to the writ petition). It is argued that in pursuance to the said recommendations made in favour of the petitioner, the signatures of the petitioner were attested as is clear from the letter dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure20 to the writ petition).

7. It is argued that an order issued by the respondent no. 4 on 25.09.2019 directing the Management for appointment of the senior most lecturer as an ad hoc Principal and in pursuance thereof, the consequential order passed by the respondent no. 5, Committee of Management to the effect that as per seniority, the petitioner was appointed as an officiating Principal, came up for challenge in Writ Petition No. 28823 (SS) of 2019. In the said writ petition, directions were issued for filing of the counter affidavit initially and subsequently on 06.11.2019, certain directions were issued in the said writ petition. The order dated 06.11.2019 is annexed as Annexure-22 to the writ petition. Later on, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 11.01.2023.

8. It is argued that in the meanwhile, Sri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, who had earlier expressed his inability to function as an officiating Principal, was appointed as a regular Principal by the Commission and probably because of the said, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. It is admitted in between the parties that subsequently, Sri Rajendra Prasad Sharma only continued for a period of two months and thereafter, once again a vacancy arose in the office of the Principal of the institution in question and once again the claim of the petitioner arose in view of the seniority list issued by the Committee of Management once again indicating that the pet