HUKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a writ petition, appellant contended that though he is the senior -most teacher and, accordingly, was entitled to serve as officiating Principal in absence of Principal, but one Devendra Kumar Tyagi, junior to him, has been wrongly given officiating charge of the office of Principal. This writ petition was withdrawn by the appellant. Subsequent thereto, as it appears, appellant was not attending the Institution. At the time when Devendra Kumar Tyagi retired and, accordingly, once again the post of Principal fell vacant, one Sudesh Arora was appointed as officiating Principal. Appointment of Sudesh Arora was the subject matter of challenge in a later writ petition filed by the appellant, registered as W.P. No. 1453 of 2012 (S/S). This writ petition has been disposed of by directing the matter to be sorted out by the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) THE reason for sending the matter to the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar appears to be the absence of the appellant from the Institution in question. In the appeal, it is the contention of the appellant that the legal questions, pertaining to the competence of the appellant to be appointed as officiating Principal, can also be sorted out by this Court. The fact remains that at the time when Devendra Kumar Tyagi retired and, accordingly, once again the post of Principal fell vacant, appellant was not available in the Institution and, accordingly, question of accommodating the appellant in the post of officiating Principal did never arise. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that at present he has been permitted to attend the Institution and, accordingly, as of today, there cannot be any impediment in appointing the appellant as officiating Principal. The fact remains that when the appellant started attending the Institution, the post of officiating Principal was not lying vacant.