JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. Heard Sri V.K. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Bhushan, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. Since, no factual controversy is involved in the present case, the writ petition is being decided finally without calling for a counter affidavit.
3. It transpires that a permanent Principal retired on 30.6.2003. Sri Ram Murti Garg, the respondent No. 6 was the senior most teacher and the Committee of Management offered him to officiate on the post of Principal. The respondent No. 6 expressed his inability to officiate as the Principal. Consequently, the Committee of Management appointed the next senior most teacher namely, Sri Murari Lal as the officiating Principal. Sri Murari Lal continued to perform his duties as the officiating Principal till 30.6.2006 and, upon his retirement, he handed over the charge to the respondent No. 6, as per the directions of the Authorised Controller, who had taken over the institution in the meanwhile, Prior to this, the Principal asked to Authorised Controller as to whom he should hand over the charge. Admittedly, the petitioner is junior to respondent No. 6. He, however, made a representation praying that he should be given the charge of the officiating principal upon the retirement of Sri Murari Lal. The Authorised Controller heard the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 and thereafter, passed the order dated 29.6.2006 directing the outgoing Principal to hand over the charge of the post of Officiating Principal to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.
4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that once the respondent No. 6 refused to accept the post of the Officiating principal, he lost his right and could not be appointed as a Principal. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various decisions in Satya Vir Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr 1995 [25] ALR 139 : [2001] 2 UPLBLEC-1713, Urmila Srivastva [Smt.] v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and Ors. [2001] 2 UPLBEC 1268, Hari Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. and the decision dated 7.4.1994 in Special Appeal No. 141 of 1993 as also a decision of the Supreme Court in , Dr. N.C. Singhal v. Union of India and Ors. on the proposition that once the Senior Most teacher declined to officiate as the Principal, he cannot claim his right again to officiate as the Principal.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no bar for the senior most teacher to be considered again for the appointment on the post of Principal after a vacancy again occurs. A teacher, who declines initially, could be considered again as and when the vacancy arises subsequently, and the Management takes a decision to fill up the vacancy. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of [1997] 1 ESC 414, Awadhesh Pandey v. Dy. Director of Education-IVth Region, Azamgarh and Ors. 1999[4] AWC 3452, Committee of Management, Kisan Vidya Mandir College, Saharanpur v. State of U.P. and Ors. [2004] 1 UPLBEC 600.
6. In my view, the judgement cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the submission made by him has been dealt in length the decision in the Committee of Management v. State of U.P. [2004] 1 UPLBEC 600. Nothing new has been added by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, this Court is not dwelling upon the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is sufficient for the Court to state that the court is in entire agreement with the said judgment.
7. From a perusal of Regulation 2 Chapter II framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, a senior most teacher is entitled to function as the Officiating Principal. Once the power under Regulation 2 Chapter II is exercised and an adhoc Principal is appointed, the said power cannot be exercised again, but could only be exercised, whenever a vacancy occurs again in future. Consequently, once a teacher declines to accept the post, the said person can apply again whenever the vacancy occurs. Consequently, the respondent having expressed his inability at an earlier point of time to officiate as the Principal can be considered again on the post of Principal whenever the vacancy occurred again, when a vacancy arose subsequently.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable and is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.