Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6360 of 2019 Petitioner :- Durg Vijay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivendu Ojha Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.3.2019 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj, the second respondent directing the Committee of Management of the institution to send proposal for appointment of respondent no.4 as officiating Principal of Boys Intermediate College, C.O.D. Chheoki, Allahabad. By the same order, the suspension of respondent no.4 by the Management on 1.10.2018 has also been revoked in exercise of power under Section 16-G (8) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The petitioner has been holding the charge of officiating Principal since the year 2013. He is admittedly not the senior most teacher in the institution. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that respondent no.4 being the senior most teacher is entitled to be appointed as officiating Principal. It has also been held that in the past, application given by respondent no.4 on 28.2.2013 showing his inability to discharge duties as officiating Principal was a result of undue pressure exerted upon him.
Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his challenge to the impugned order to the extent it denudes the petitioner of his position as officiating Principal of the institution. It is urged that the finding recorded in the impugned order that respondent no.4 was pressurized to submit his resignation is wholly illegal and perverse. It is submitted that after submitting his resignation from the post of officiating Principal in the year 2013, respondent no.4 did not ever raise any issue about any undue pressure having been exerted upon him. He further submitted that even in the affidavit dated 6.6.2015, there is no mention of any undue pressure having been exerted upon him leading to filing of application dated 28.2.2013. On the contrary, it is stated in the said affidavit that he submitted application dated 28.2.2013 on account of his physical and mental ailments. He further points out that respondent no.4, vide letter dated 11.9.2018 addressed to the Joint Director of Education, informed him that he was called by District Inspector of Schools in his office on 15.12.2017 and he was told by him that he wanted to appoint him as Principal of the institution in case he gives in writing that now he is fit to discharge the duties as officiating Principal. It is submitted that based on the said letter, the Joint Director of Education, after calling for comments from the Principal/Manager of the institution, directed the District Inspector of Schools to ensure handing over of charge of the post of officiating Principal to respondent no.4 and in pursuance whereof, respondent no.2 by order dated 18.9.2018 directed for charge of the post of officiating Principal being handed over to respondent no.4. It is urged that a plain reading of letter dated 11.9.2018 reveals that respondent no.4 took a somersault and started making claim for the post of officiating Principal on account of instigation by the District Inspector of Schools. In pith and substance, the submission is that had there been any undue pressure upon respondent no.4 in submitting his resignation in the year 2013, he would not have kept quiet for almost five years.
Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 is not in a position to convince the Court that the findings returned are based on any cogent evidence. The application of the fourth respondent dated 11.9.2018 on basis of which the Joint Director of Education, for the first time, directed for charge being handed over to respondent no.4, has not been adverted to while passing the impugned order. He, therefore, very fairly agrees for the instant matter being sent back to the District Inspector of Schools for reconsideration. He further submitted that the District Inspector of Schools be directed to take decision in a time bound manner, to which counsel for the other parties have no objection.
Learned standing counsel also does not have any objection in case such a course, as suggested by Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel, is adopted.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.3.2019, to the extent it directs for charge of the post of officiating Principal being handed over to respondent no.4, is hereby quashed. The consequential order dated 3.4.2019 shall also stand quashed accordingly. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to decide the matter afresh, after giving opportunity to the parties to file additional documents, if they so desire, after serving copies thereof on the other side. The parties agree to appear before the District Inspector of Schools on 10.6.2019. The District Inspector of Schools shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter within next four weeks positively.
In the meantime, the petitioner, who had been working as officiating Principal right from the year 2013, shall be permitted to work but it shall be subject to decision that would be taken by respondent no.2 in compliance of the instant order. The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 29.5.2019 SL