Heard Sri Bheem Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Mayank Agrawal holding brief of Sri Vinod Sinha, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 6 and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the contesting parties agree that the writ petition may be finally disposed of at this stage itself without calling for any further affidavit, specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today by the Court. The facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: S.B. Inter College Surjawali Via Khurja, District-Bulandshahar is an institution recognized under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. For the institution three Class-III posts have been duly sanctioned, namely one Head Clerk and two Clerk. Petitioner before this Court is stated to have been appointed by way of direct recruitment as Clerk in the institution on 31.07.1995. The contesting respondent no. 6 has been promoted on the post of Clerk by way of promotion on 01.03.1995. Admittedly, contesting respondent no. 6 is senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Clerk. A vacancy on the post of Head Clerk in the institution has been caused due to retirement of one Jai Prakash Sharma. The vacancy is within 50% quota reserved for promotion. The Committee of Management of the institution (appointing authority), having regard to the provisions of Regulation 2(2) of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, passed a resolution superseding the respondent no. 6, for promotion on the post of Head Clerk on the ground that his service record is not satisfactory and recommended the name of the present petitioner for promotion on the post of Head Clerk. The respondent no. 6 filed Writ Petition No. 18490 of 2010 claiming that since he was the senior most Clerk, he was entitled for promotion on the post of Head Clerk. The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to respondent no. 6 (petitioner in the said petition) to represent his grievance before the District Inspector of Schools, who in turn was required to pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management and any other employee interested in the promotion. The District Inspector of Schools under the impugned order has allowed the representation made by the petitioner after holding that he was senior to the present petitioner and that adverse material referred to in the resolution of the Committee of Management, for superseding the said respondent no. 6, was never communicated to him and therefore of no consequence. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
In paragraph 24 of the writ petition it has been stated that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner or committee of management contrary to the order of the writ court, referred to above, and therefore the impugned order is illegal. He further submits that in case opportunity was afforded, it would have been amply demonstrated that respondent no. 6 had sufficient knowledge of the adverse material existing on his service record. On behalf of respondent no. 6 it is contended that the service record has been tempered with by the Committee of Management only to provide promotion to a person junior to the said respondent. However, it is not disputed that the District Inspector of Schools did not afford opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management and the present petitioner, who was the other person interested in the such promotion, contrary to the directions issued by this Court, referred to above.
Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to enter into the merit of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, inasmuch as the order has to be set aside on one short ground that contrary to the direction issued by the writ court under order dated 06.04.2010 the District Inspector of Schools did not afford opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management as well as to the other employee interested in the such promotion, namely the petitioner. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 25.05.2010, being in violation of the order of this Court, is therefore a nullity in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mulraj vs. Murti Raghunath Maharaj, AIR 1967 SC 1386 (Para 8). The order dated 25.05.2010 is, therefore, set aside.
Let the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner and the Committee of Management by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.
With the aforesaid observation/direction the present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.6.2010 Pkb/