Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17223 of 2018 Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate, Sri Radha Kant Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Gautam Baghel,Rajesh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the order dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) by which the DIOS, Fatehpur has approved the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Officiating Principal of Dhata Intermediate College, Fatehpur and has cancelled the earlier appointment of the petitioner on the post of Officiating Principal.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner is junior to respondent No.5. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Officiating Principal as during the relevant point of time respondent No.5 was under suspension. Suspension order of respondent No.5 was revoked on 28.05.2018 and, therefore, the embargo on his appointment as Officiating Principal of the College was vanished. Once, the suspension order was revoked, there was no hurdle for appointing respondent No.5 as Officiating Principal as he was the senior most teacher of the College.
3. Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.C. Tripathi appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there were serious allegations against respondent No.5, therefore, even if the suspension was revoked till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded, he could not have been appointed as Officiating Principal. To buttress this submission learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 6 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Rules, 1998 which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Rule-6 Character:- The character of a candidate for direct recruitment to a post of Teacher must be such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in an education institution. The Board shall satisfy itself on this point.
Note:- Persons dismissed by the Union Government or a State Government or a Local Authority or by a Corporation or Body owned or controlled by the Union Government or a State Government shall be ineligible for appointment. Persons convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude shall also be ineligible.”
5. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that approval of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board should have been taken before reverting the petitioner from the post of Officiating Principal. Therefore, on both the counts the impugned order is bad in law.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The Rule 6 talks about the character of a candidate for direct recruitment. This Rule is not applicable in the case of ad hoc appointment.Learned Senior counsel has failed to point out any Rule similar to that of Rule 6 for ad hoc appointment.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was junior to respondent No.5 and he was appointed as Officiating Principal of the College when respondent No.5 was put under suspension. Once the suspension order has been revoked, the embargo to appoint him as officiating principal gets lifted. There was no hurdle to give the charge of Officiating Principal to respondent No.5 after suspension order was revoked.
9. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. I find that the writ petition has no bases and merit and therefore, it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 prateek