Court No. - 07
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33919 of 1995 Petitioner :- Subhash Kushwaha Respondent :- The U.P. Sec. Education Service Comm. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M.K. Nigam,Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- S.A. Gilani,H.K.Singh,Nawal Kishor Mishra,S.C.,Santosh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri K.N. Khushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manvendra Dixit and Sri Naval Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief:
"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the attestation of signatures of the respondent no.4 (Annexure- 10 to the writ petition) as well as the alleged appointment of the respondent no.4 as Principal, Adarsh Inter College, Siwan Kalan Ballia.
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the panel dated 30.1.1986 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition).
(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in working of the petitioner as Principal of Adarsh Intermediate College Siwankalan, Ballia.
(iv) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(v) To award the costs of this petitioner to the petitioner.
(vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 11.10.1995 passed by respondent no.1 (Annexure No.1 to the present affidavit.)”
A counter affidavit dated 18.01.1996 has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed in January, 1996. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3 dated January, 1996 has also been filed. The respondent No.4 has also filed a counter affidavit dated – December, 1995. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Therefore, the averments made in the counter affidavits are liable to be treated as correct.
As admitted in paragraph-4 of the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in English on 01.08.1985. He allegedly joined as officiating Principal on 01.12.1988. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and also in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it has been stated that one Sri Subhash Chandra Sharma was senior to the petitioner but he could not join as officiating Principal on 01.12.1988 due to some untoward happenings in his family. Therefore, the petitioner remained as In-charge Principal from 01.12.1988 to 11.12.1991. Thereafter, the aforesaid Subhash Chandra Sharma joined as officiating Principal and discharged his duties as an officiating Principal from 12.12.1991 to 30.01.1995. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.22626 of 1992 challenging his replacement by the aforesaid Subhash Chandra Sharma as officiating Principal. No interim order was granted in this writ petition but ultimately the writ petition was allowed by this court by order dated 09.02.1995 directing the respondent to treat the petitioner as officiating Principal who shall be entitled to continue until he is replaced by a duly selected Principal. From the order dated 09.02.1995 passed in Writ Petition No.22626 of 1992, it appears that a Writ Petition No.16832 of 1982 was also filed and an order dated 11.05.1992 was passed which enabled the District Inspector of Schools to attest the signatures of the aforesaid Subhash Chandra Sharma as Principal. The Special Appeal No.121 of 1995 filed against the order dated 09.02.1995 in Writ Petition No.22626 of 1992 was dismissed by order dated 24.02.1995.
It appears that pursuant to advertisement for Lucknow Region, the respondent No.4 was selected by Commission on 08.08.1985 against the vacancy of the post of Principal in J.P. Inter College, District Khiri. The respondent No.4 was selected. Subsequently, the post of Principal was also advertised by advertisement dated 20.07.1985 by the Commission for Varanasi Region which included the Institution in question, i.e. Adarsh Intermediate College, Ballia. The respondent No.4 was selected as Principal for this institution also, i.e. the institution in question but on account of litigation, he could not avail an opportunity although he tried his best to be adjusted in the institution. The respondent No.4 took the charge of Principal of the institution in question in pursuance to the order passed by Secretary, Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad dated 11.10.1995, his signature was attested by the D.I.O.S. as has been stated in paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit of Sri A.P. Verma, D.I.O.S. Ballia. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 22.11.1995. An interim order dated 30.11.1995 was passed in this case on the ground that the petitioner is working on the post of officiating Principal and he is legally entitled to remain on the said post until someone is validly appointed by Commission to take over charge from him. From perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the entire facts with regard to the selection of the respondent No.4 and his appointment in Adarsh Intermediate College, Ballia were concealed by the petitioner, although in paragraph-29, it has been admitted that the District Inspector of School has attested the signatures of the respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has stated today before me that the respondent No.4 has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014 and has retired.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent No.4 was selected by the Commission in the year 1986 and the life of panel is only one year as per Rules, therefore, the appointment of the respondent No.4 could not have been made.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the respondent No.4 has retired on 30.06.2014, no cause of action survives against the respondent No.4. The petitioner being an ad hoc lecturer was having no right to continue as officiating Principal against a duly selected candidate by the Commission. Since the respondent No.4 has retired, therefore, I do not find it appropriate to make further comments on the issue inasmuch as no cause of action now survives in the present writ petition against the respondent No.4. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.05.2018 NLY