When the case was called out, it was requested that it may be adjourned for a few minutes as Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Senior Advocate is to appear, the case was adjourned.
Heard Pt. S. Chandra learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.P. Verma counsel for opposite party nos. 4 and 5 while the learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of opposite party no. 1.
The petitioner has challenged the order of approval passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari regarding the appointment of the opposite party no. 8 Sri Jagdamba Prasad Yadav on the post of the Head Master of tehe Annapurna Adarsh Vidyalaya Dhauraua District Ambedkar Nagar while further praying that the opposite parties may be directed not to disturb and interfere in the working and functioning of the petitioner as Principal of the Inter College of the institution.
The case was argued on 5.1.2010 by Pt. S. Chandra as well as Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Senior Advocate. Pt. S. Chandra has placed reliance on the judgment passed in 2006(1) ALJ 523 Dr. (Smt.) Sushila Gupta vs. The Joint Director of Education Kanpur and others. He has referred to paragaraph nos. 21, 27 and 30 which are quoted below :
"21. The aforesaid Government Order became subject matter of scrutiny in 2 decisions of this Court. Clause 5 of the said Government order was found to be inconsistent with the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act adn was held to be ultra vires in the decision of Ramesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, in Writ Petition No. 17422 of 2003 decided on 23.5.2003.
27. Once the institution is recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the institution binds itself with the terms and conditions of recognition which includes the applicability of the Act itself. It is not open to the institution to change its option in respect of teh applicability of Rules and Regulations in view of the binding force of the Act which provides that an institution so recognized, shall be governed by the provisions of the same Act. The Intermediate Education Act does not carve out any exception for the applicability of Rules to the employees and the institution of the earlier Junior High School which stands upgraded.
30. In view of the conclusions and findings recorded herein above, the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner has to be answered in the affirmative in -2- favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the institutions where the respondents are proceeding to make an appointment on the post of the Head of the institution which is admittedly an upgraded institution, can only be made under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulation framed thereunder coupled with the provisions of the U.P Act No. 5 of 1982 and such otehr provisions that are consistent with the law laid down herein above.
Opposite parties are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed in a week. Meanwhile the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the post of Principal and he shall be allowed to work as officiating Principal."
The facts of the case in the present petition are squarely covered by this judgment.
Counsel for the opposite parties are granted a week's time to file counter affidavit . Rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within two days'.
List this case on 22.1.2010.
Meanwhile the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the post of Principal and shall be allowed to continue officiating as such until further orders of the court.
Order Date :- 13.1.2010 Om.