ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Summon the entire relevant record from the possession of the court below;

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or Quo Warranto or any other Writ and set aside the impugned orders dt. 6 Jan, 2023 and 12 Dec, 2022 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) and consequently quash and set-aside the appointment of the private Respondent along with all consequential measures.

iii. Declare that the petitioner be permitted to continue on the post of Principal of the said School till the substantive appointment is made on the said post, in accordance with Rules of 2018.

iv. Award the cost of the litigation in favor of the Petitioner.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner is working as In-charge Principal of Rajpoot Uchchatar Madhyamik School, Village and Post Amarha, District Shahdol and now respondent No.6/Arun Kumar Singh has been appointed as Principal by order dated 12.12.2022 and by order dated 06.01.2023 petitioner has been directed to hand over the charge of Principal to respondent No.6. Although the present petition has been filed in the nature of quo warranto but petitioner has also claimed that since he is working as In-charge Principal, therefore, he should be allowed to continue till regular appointment is made.

3. It is the case of petitioner that post of Principal is a 100% promotional post, whereas respondent No.6 has been appointed as Principal by direct recruitment which is not permissible under the Madhya Pradesh State School Education Service (Academic Cadre), Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018.

4. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents Nos.4 & 5. It is submitted that it is incorrect to say that respondent No.6 has been appointed by adopting the method of direct recruitments.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties.

6. Counsel for respondents Nos.4 & 5 was directed to point out the procedure adopted for appointment of respondent No.6 as Principal.

7. It is submitted by Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, counsel for respondents Nos.4 & 5 that earlier Shri Babulal Singh, who was Lab Assistant, was also working as In-charge Principal and he retired on

31.01.2019. Accordingly, Shri Kamal Singh was appointed as In-charge Principal. Later on, by order dated 11.03.2019 petitioner was appointed as In-charge Principal in place of Babulal Singh. Thereafter, Kamal Singh, who claimed himself to be senior to petitioner raised objection and accordingly, Commissioner, Directorate of Public Education directed District Education Officer, Shahdol to ensure that senior most teacher is posted as In-charge Principal. Since society was facing difficulty in smooth functioning of its working, therefore, a proposal was placed before the society on 16.10.2022 for appointment of Principal and other employees which was approved and it was decided that a committee may be constituted for appointment of Principal, Teachers and Employees. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued for appointment on various posts including the Principal. Respondent No.6 was appointed as Principal. Since appointment of Principal is after issuing advertisement, therefore, it cannot be said that appointment of respondent No.6 is by way of direct recruitment.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties.

9. Submissions made by counsel for respondent No.5 that appointment of respondent No.6 is not an outcome of direct recruitment is shocking. Accordingly, he has directed to address as to what is the meaning of direct recruitment?

10. It is submitted by counsel for respondents Nos.4 & 5 that when a candidate is appointed after an advertisement is issued and recruitment process is undertaken, then it will not be a direct recruitment but direct recruitment will be when a person is unilaterally picked up.

11. The aforesaid submission is misconceived. It cannot be accepted. Respondent No.6 was not an employee of society and he has been appointed after an adver