The petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure - 1) to the extent whereby it divests the petitioner of the financial and administrative powers from 01.09.2020 up to 30.06.2021 and further directs the petitioner to handover charge of principal to the senior most lecturer.
2. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction reading down/quashing the Government Order dated 29.01.2014 contained in Annexure No.2 being dehors the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court.
3. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith restore the status quo ante and thereby handover the charge of Principal back to the petitioner with all the powers (including financial & administrative) of the aforesaid post, in compliance with the law settled by this Hon'ble Court by means of judgments dated January 9, 2002 and January 5, 2016.
4. issue any other writ, order or direction as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner started her teaching career as Lecturer in English in 1995. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal of College vide order dated dated 24.08.2017. It is submitted that pursuant to the said promotion order, the petitioner held the post of Principal on a permanent basis in the college. It is submitted that First Statute of Lucknow University made a provision for continuance of service of a teacher retiring after 30th June; and in the middle of a session till the 30th June following.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner preferred a representation dated 19.06.2020 addressed to respondent no.3 contending therein that session benefit up to 30th June next year should be given to her as a Principal as per the statute. It is submitted that the language of the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 reveals that the same is not bona fide and has been passed under extraneous considerations inasmuch as the same is self contradictory. It is submitted that in the opening lines of the order, the petitioner has been described as Principal whereas in the concluding lines of the same order, respondent no.3 carries a doubt as to whether the petitioner is holding the office of Principal or not.
Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 lays down stricter conditions than that of the impugned Government Order dated 29.01.2014 inasmuch the said Government Order although directs for divesting the administrative and financial powers upon superannuation; but the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 further goes ahead and in addition to divesting the administrative and financial powers also directs for handing over the charge of Principal to the senior-most lecturer, which prima facie is not directed or contemplated in the impguned Government Order dated 29.01.2014. It is also submitted that the impugned Government Order dated 29.01.2014 is violating the settled legal position held by this Court vide judgment dated 09.01.2002 rendered in the case of Dr. R.C. Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors. - 2002 SCC Online All 1527, which was relied upon and reaffirmed on 05.01.2016 rendered in Writ A No.67171 of 2015 (Dr. Jagdish Singh Somvanshi v. State of U.P. & Ors.). He has further submitted that the decision to withdraw the powers from the petitioner while continuing her in service amounts to reduction in rank, which is punitive and cannot be resorted to without holding a proper inquiry as the petitioner has protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel has submitted that the conditions laid down in the impugned Government Order dated 29.01.2014 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and the same is also irrational and impractical inasmuch as it provides that after attaining the age of superannuation, the Principal, the Principal would be divested of administrative and financial powers, which would then be vested upon the senior-most lecturer. It is submitted that conferment of financial and administrative powers as well as charge of the office of Principal upon the senior-most lecturer means that the Principal, for all practical purposes will become subordinate/dependent upon the senior-most lecturer. Such scheme provided by the impugned Government Order cannot survive the test of reasonableness and rationality.
Learned counsel has submitted that the basis of providing session benefits to Principals/Teachers is students' welfare in order to secure continuity of education process throughout academic session. If the precondition for the aforesaid scheme causes humiliation or embarrassment to the head of the educational institution, the same is bound to cause adverse impact upon continuity of education, extracurricular activities as well as other welfare schemes for the students. It is submitted that in the impugned order dated 28.08.2020, a condition was also imposed that the session benefit up to 30.06.2021 would be admissible only in the event of petitioner relinquishing not only the financial and administrative powers but also the charge of the office of Principal by handing over the same to the senior-most lecturer in the college. In order to secure the continuity in service as well as teaching process in students' welfare, the petitioner was forced to relinquish and handover the charge of the office of Principal of the degree college to the senior-most lecturer.
Learned counsel has submitted that the conditions laid down in the impugned orders by divesting the permanent Principal of administrative and financial powers is illegal as it runs contrary to the legal position settled by this Court from time to time, therefore, the impugned order(s) are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and submitted that the petitioner by way of filing the instant petition sought relief for being promoted as a Principal with financial and administrative powers even after her retirement during the period the petitioner has been permitted to continue giving the session benefit to her due to availability of the post of the subject in which the petitioner is selected from the U.P. Public Service Commission.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was working as a Principal in a government degree college and post of Principal in the government degree college is a Group - A Gazetted post where the session benefit are extended only for performing the teaching work under the Government Order dated 29.01.2014. It is submitted that the Government Order dated 29.01.2014 provides that any Principal availing the session benefit would not be having the financial and administrative powers of Principal and the senior-most lecturer of the said college against whom no vigilance inquiry or criminal prosecution is going on or pending will exercise the financial and administrative powers. He has submitted that since as per Government Order dated 29.01.2014, the financial and administrative powers are not available to a Principal availing session benefit after retirement, the claim of the petitioner for being permitted to continue as Principal with financial and administrative powers is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel has submitted that immediately after attaining the age of superannuation, the concerned employee loses her status and in the case of teachers, the benefit of session is given in order to protect the interest of students so that their studies may not be affected adversely and accordingly attaining the age of superannuation, the present petitioner also lost her status as Principal but she has been given session benefit and in fact after attaining the age of superannuation she has completed her services and accordingly, the Government Order dated 29.01.2014 which puts a condition that the Principal of a government degree college during session benefit will not be having the financial and administrative powers cannot be said to be hit by the mandate of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India.
Learned counsel has further submitted that validity of Government Order dated 29.01.2014 is also challenged in the instant petition on the basis of two judgments referred above. However, both the aforesaid judgments have been rendered in the case of Principals working in non-government aided degree colleges and the post of Principal in the non-government aided degree colleges do not come in the category of Group - A Gazetted Officer, whereas the petitioner being the Principal of government degree college, where the post of Principal comes in the category of Group - A Gazetted Officer, is not entitled to be permitted to continue as Principal with financial and administrative powers during the period of session benefits after attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of aforesaid judgments.
Learned counsel has further submitted that there is reasonable classification between the Principals of non-government aided degree colleges and government degree colleges and accordingly, the petitioner being the Principal of government degree colleges cannot claim parity with the Principals of non-government aided degree colleges.
Learned counsel has submitted that impugned order dated 28.08.2020 has been passed by respondent no.3 bonafidely and the same is in conformity with the Government Order dated 29.01.2014, as such, the same cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner. The petitioner has been given session benefits under the provisions of Government Order dated 29.01.2014 and further in view of the provisions contained in the said Government Order itself, since the financial and administrative powers cannot be given to the petitioner, the same has rightly not been given to the petitioner and as such the order dated 28.08.2020 is perfectly in accordance with law.
Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the above, the instant petition is devoid of merit and be dismissed as such.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 (supra) as well as Government Order dated 29.01.2014.
Perusal of the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 (supra) reveals that vide the said order, considering the welfare of the students, the petitioner was allowed to teach them at the college from 01.09.2020 till 30.06.2021, however, she was not allowed to exercise financial and administrative powers. It was further directed to the petitioner that she will handover the charge of Principal to the senior-most lecturer of the college.
From perusal of the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 (supra) it is evident that the said order has been passed in the light of Government Orders dated 21.01.1984 and 23.09.2011, part of which has been modified vide Government Order dated 29.01.2014 and a condition was imposed that the Principal of any government college, who has been given session benefit, on completion of age of superannuation will not have administrative and financial powers and the said powers shall be exercised by senior-most lecturer of the said college against whom no disciplinary action, vigilance inquiry or criminal prosecution is pending.
The Government Order dated 29.01.2014 has also been challenged in the instant writ petition on the ground that the said Government Order is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Dr. R.C. Gupta (supra) and Dr. Jandish Singh Somvanshi (supra). It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is working in a government college as a Principal, therefore, she is holding Group-A Gazetted Officer post but both the aforesaid judgments have been rendered in the case of Principals working in non-government aided degree colleges and the post of Principal in the non-government aided degree colleges do not come in the category of Group - A Gazetted Officer. Therefore, the said two judgments do not apply in the case of the petitioner. In such circumstances, there is no illegality in the Government Order dated 29.01.2014.
A plain reading of Government Order dated 29.01.2014 (supra) shows that the said Government Order is silent on the point as to whether after attaining age of superannuation if a person, who used to be the Principal of the said college at the time of superannuation, is given session benefit, he/she will hold the post of Principle besides teaching for the academic session. The Government Order dated 29.01.2014 (supra) only provides that Principal of any government college, who has been given session benefit on completion of age of superannuation will not have administrative and financial powers and the said powers shall be exercised by senior-most lecturer of the said college.
In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 is wrong to the extent where it was directed that the petitioner will handover the charge of Principal to senior-most lecturer of the college.
Consequently, the instant writ petition is partly allowed.
Impugned order dated 28.08.2020 passed by respondent no.3/Director, Higher Education, Directorate, Prayagraj, U.P. is modified to the extent that the petitioner will retain the post of Principal without any administrative and financial powers till 30.06.2021.
The order passed in this case shall not be treated as precedent.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 nishant/-