Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10064 of 2021 Petitioner :- Aatma Nand Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel in support of the petition, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Committee of Management, Sri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
The petitioner being the senior most teacher in the respondent institution set up a claim to be appointed as officiating Principal consequent to that post falling substantively vacant. The petitioner admittedly was appointed way back in 2003 and between the parties, it is not disputed that the petitioner is the senior most teacher and was otherwise eligible to be appointed as officiating Principal. However, a dispute appears to have arisen consequent to a complaint having been received by the District Inspector of Schools in which it was alleged that the petitioner had entered into a bigamous relationship which fact was concealed at the time of his initial appointment.
Taking cognizance of the aforesaid complaint, the District Inspector of Schools issued a notice on 05 May 2021 seeking a response from the petitioner here by 18 May 2021. However, and even before the petitioner could furnish a reply, by an order of 06 May 2021 the DIOS provided that till the inquiry into the aforesaid complaint is concluded, the petitioner would not be entitled to act as officiating Principal. On 03 June 2021, the DIOS proceeded to pass a consequential order handing over charge of officiating Principal to the respondent no.4. The Court notes and has been apprised that the complaint as made against the petitioner, has been referred to the Joint Director, Education who is yet to conclude the inquiry which has been initiated.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is rendered unsustainable for the following reasons.
Till such time as the charge of bigamy and concealment of material facts is in fact inquired into and definite conclusions arrived and recorded, the right of the petitioner to hold the post of officiating Principal cannot possibly be disputed bearing in mind his admitted position in the seniority list. The Court also bears in mind that prior to the present complaint no such issue was raised even though the petitioner had been appointed in 2003. The respondent would have been well advised to have concluded the inquiry and only thereafter proceed to take a decision as to whether the petitioner was entitled and suitable to hold the post of officiating Principal or not.
In view of the aforesaid conclusions, learned counsels submitted that the petition may be disposed of finally with the right of the petitioner to continue to discharge duties as officiating Principal abiding by the final decision which the Joint Director is likely to take consequent to the inquiry which has been initiated.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 06 May, 03 June and 26 June 2021 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall consequently be entitled to function as officiating Principal subject to the outcome of the inquiry initiated by the Joint Director. Insofar as the complaint and other related aspects are concerned, the Court only observes that all contentions of respective parties are kept open.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Vivek Kr.