Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings S N L o . .

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPMS 3310/ 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel, for the State.

(2) This writ petition has been filed by Committee of Management of Govind Ballabh Pant Inter College, Kashipur seeking the following relief:

“i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate action on the enquiry report of the Committee as submitted to Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar/respondent no. 3 personally vide letter dated 01.08.2025 (contained as Annexure no. 20 to this writ petition), within a time frame as is deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court.”

(3) According to petitioner, respondent no. 4, who was appointed as downgrade Principal of the said college in the year 2016, was not qualified for such promotion as the post had fallen vacant in 2013, while respondent no. 4 had acquired requisite eligibility for appointment as Principal in 2016.

(4) Learned State Counsel is right in submitting that Committee of Management has no locus standi to raise the issue, as the Committee is employer in respect of teaching and non-teaching employees serving in a government aided school, including its Principal, and employer cannot file writ petition against his own employee, challenging his appointment/promotion. Learned State Counsel points out that this is the case of witch-hunting, as number of writ petitions have been filed against respondent no. 4 by the Committee of Management and respondent no. 4 was also roped in false criminal cases. He thus submits that this writ petition is an abuse of process of law.

(5) This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. The Committee of Management lacks the requisite standing to maintain the present petition. The conduct of the petitioner also reinforces the conclusion that the proceedings are motivated and vexatious.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

28.11.2025 Pr P K R U A M B A O R DH DU29sCDe.8A TiN a 5r g dti :4ae Atc l: a 62N = C R 2 l0I u0 yN5=7mK s,3F io b ga3. A=,eC n pNH r89 e =o2D 2 IdGsa ,t b D H0 5 y l7 CC P B1: Oo9R d5 0 UAaeE3 Bf=8, T 4 O 92cD + D n160=3FH Ca0P A K9 'R3 T 6 U510, M BEs9Ot A 17=6D R4UB3 K HT9aH 4Kf8AA0U N ER2MF D1DcK, 5R oH0 8 uA6=NH2DIfG,C 6He aC 1 O A4U B R 56T 81 aOf03F 5 2eDFb61