Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Dr. Dhananjay Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 11493 of 2023
Decided On : 24-11-2023
Officiating Principal - Dispute over officiating as Principal - Statute 12Ka.20 - The court held that once the senior most teacher declines to officiate as Principal after a substantive vacancy, they cannot subsequently claim the position on the same vacancy. The court also noted that the inquiry report against the petitioner had not been given a logical end, and the disciplinary authority should take a final decision in accordance with the statute and regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Lecturer/Associate Professor, was appointed as an Officiating Principal of an institution. Disputes arose regarding the petitioner's appointment, with allegations of financial irregularities and procedural irregularities being made against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order removing them from the position of Officiating Principal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being next in seniority, was allowed to officiate as Principal after the senior most Associate Professor declined the position due to medical issues. The court held that the senior most teacher's refusal to officiate as Principal on the same substantive vacancy barred them from subsequently claiming the position. The court also noted that the inquiry report against the petitioner had not been given a logical end, and the disciplinary authority should take a final decision in accordance with the statute and regulations.
Issues: Dispute over officiating as Principal, allegations of financial and procedural irregularities, challenge to the order removing the petitioner from the position of Officiating Principal.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the senior most teacher declines to officiate as Principal after a substantive vacancy, they cannot subsequently claim the position on the same vacancy. The disciplinary authority should take a final decision in accordance with the statute and regulations pursuant to the inquiry report.
Final Decision: The order removing the petitioner from the position of Officiating Principal was set aside, and a mandamus was issued to the respondents to accord joining to the petitioner as an Officiating Principal of the institution. The disciplinary authority should take a final decision in accordance with the statute and regulations pursuant to the inquiry report.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Girdhar Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jigar Khare, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with their consent the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. The facts of the case as worded in the writ petition are that there is an institution by the name of Mathura P.G. College, Rasra, District Ballia which is affiliated to Jannayak Chandrashekhar University, Ballia (In short respondent University) and the first statute of Mahatama Ganhi Kashi Vidyapeeth (First amendment) Statue 2011 are applicable.
4. Since the fourth respondent institution is affiliated to the respondent University thus the payment of salaries of the teaching and non teaching staff of the institution is being made under the provisions of Section 60B of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
5. The writ petitioner claims to be appointed as a Lecturer/Associate Professor on 19.2.1991 in the subject Geography and was promoted in the grade of Associate Professor on 1.1.2006. A substantive post of Principal fell vacant on 12.8.2016. As per the seniority list one Dr. Smt. Urmila Singh was the senior most Lecturer/Associate Professor followed by the sixth respondent Dr. Dharmatmanand Gupta and then the writ petitioner, Dr. Dhananjay Singh.
6. Since Dr. Smt. Urmila Singh and sixth respondent Dr. Dharmatmanand Gupta, Associate Professor (Economics) refused to officiate as a Principal of the fourth respondent Institution on 11.6.2018 so the writ petitioner who was next in the league was allowed to Officiate as a Principal of the institution in question by virtue of an order passed by the Authorised Controller/District Magistrate, Ballia on 12.6.2008 who was manning the institution in question. The signature of the writ petitioner as an Officiating Principal was also attested and he assumed the charge as an Officiating Principal on 14.6.2018.
7. According to the writ petitioner complaints were lodged by a Local M.L.A. and Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Accountant Mathura, P.G. College Rasra, Ballia regarding the working of the writ petitioner as an Officiating Principal institution in question pursuant whereto an order is stated to have been passed by Commissioner Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh on 24.9.2020 for holding of inquiry against the writ petitioner.
8. A Committee is stated to have been constituted headed by Chief Development Officer, Ballia along with the Senior Treasury Officer and District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, which conducted the inquiry while submitting the inquiry report that the works relating to accounts in the institution in question was not being conducted properly as despite the fact that there happened to be an authorised accountant the writ petitioner in the capacity of an officiating Principal was getting the accounts work done through private persons. Apart from the same the vouchers were also issued in the name of employees who were presenting the said vouchers creating a situation whereby the regularly appointed and authorised accountant was being deprived of work and financial irregularities were being committed which was against the Government Orders.
9. A communication noticing the aforesaid irregularities was issued under the signature of the Chief Development Officer, Ballia to the Commissioner Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh on 13/17.11.2020
10. After the receipt of the communication dated 13/17.11.2020 of the Chief Development Officer, Ballia addressed to Commissioner Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh another communication was issued on 30.7.2021 under the signatures of Joint Director Higher Education on behalf of the Director of Higher Education addressed to the Administrator, Mathura P.G. College,
Employment and Service matter - Post of Lecturer - Petitioner has been superannuated he may not be permitted to hold post of officiating Principal but he shall continue in service as Lecturer till co....
The Officiating Principal has the right to challenge the appointment of a regularly selected candidate, and appointments made contrary to statutory provisions are invalid.
Eligibility for the appointment of a principal must be assessed as of the vacancy date, and subsequent qualifications can establish entitlement to the position.
A teacher's prior waiver of a position can be condoned under changed circumstances, but a conviction involving moral turpitude disqualifies an individual from holding a principal position.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the relevant rules and regulations, particularly the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989, in matters relat....
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide substantiated reasoning in their decisions to ensure fairness in civil rights matters.
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasoned decisions when determining civil rights; failure to do so renders the decision unsustainable.
The court upheld the validity of the petitioner's appointment as Principal, asserting no individual can claim dual permanent positions in educational administration.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
