Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20794 of 2019
Petitioner :- Neeru
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Agrahari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.
The petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Deepchandra Grain Inter College, Muzaffar Nagar. It appears that a substantive vacancy of Lecturer (English) arose on account of retirement of one Atar Singh Nain. The said post was within the 50% promotion quota and respondent no.4, committee of management, passed resolution for promoting the petitioner as Lecturer (English) and forwarded the papers to the Joint Director of Education for granting approval.
The Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur, by order dated 11.07.2016 refused to accord approval to the promotion of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order in Writ A No.50073 of 2016 (Smt. Neeru Vs. State of U.P. and Others) which was disposed of by this Court by judgement and order dated 19.10.2016 directing the Joint Director of Education to revisit the matter in the light of judgement of Raeesul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2015 (6) ADJ 778 (LB)(FB).
Pursuant to the aforesaid judgement of this Court, Regional Selection Committee by order dated 06.01.2017 accorded approval to the promotion of the petitioner. It appears that judgement of Raeesul Hasan (supra) has been assailed in Special Leave Petition and Apex Court has passed an interim order on 06.11.2017 in the said special leave petition.
It appears that in the meantime, respondent no.5, Yogesh Kumar, who claims himself to be member of general body of the society, submitted a complaint to the Joint Director of Education alleging therein that on the post in question, Smt. Manju, who was also teaching English subject, was eligible to be promoted, but committee of management illegally recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion on the said post. On the said complaint, a noting has been put by the Joint Director of Education on 28.09.2019 directing the District Inspector of Schools to conduct an enquiry and submit report. The said noting has been impugned in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that promotion of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (English) was in accordance with law and approval to the promotion of the petitioner was accorded in view of the judgement of Raeesul Hasan (supra). He submits that respondent no.5 has no locus to file complaint and the said complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court to harass the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that in case any promotion has been made illegally and approval to the same has been obtained by concealing facts, the Joint Director of Education, being supervisory authority, has power to verify the fact and direct the District Inspector of Schools to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. He submits that the order of the Joint Director of Education does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as petitioner may place all the correct facts in the enquiry, therefore, at this stage, it is not a fit case where this Court should interfere and exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is misconceived at this stage for the reason that only a complaint has been filed against the petitioner as petitioner has been granted promotion ignoring the claim of one Smt. Manju. The Joint Director of Education has only directed the District Inspector of Schools to conduct an enquiry and submit report. The petitioner can very well participate in the enquiry and place all the facts before the District Inspector of Schools. The order impugned in the writ petition has been passed by respondent no2. in exercise of supervisory power as he is duty bound to see that the claim of a rightful person may not be defeated.
Thus, in view of the said fact, this Court finds that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India as petitioner is not prejudiced by the order impugned.
Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Sattyarth