DHRUA NARAIN DUBEY Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a resolution dated 10.4.2000 on account of ill-health of Sri Dhruv Narain Shukla, the respondent No. 3. the Principal of the College, the petitioner Dhrua Narain Dubey was given charge of Head Master. He was also appointed Center Superintendent for the Board Examination and was also entrusted with the responsibility of conducting home examination. In the said resolution, it was pointed out that Sri Dhruv Narain Shukla. respondent No. 3 is entitled to receive the salary of Principal till 30.6.2000. By an order dated 29.4.2000, pursuant to the resolution dated 10.4.2000, the District Inspector of Schools. Siddharthnagar had approved the entrustment of the administrative and financial power upon Srt Dhrua Narain Dubey providing that Sri Dhruv Narain Shukla. respondent No. 3 will continue to receive the salary of Principal till 30.6.2000 and had also approved the signature of Sri Dhrua Narain Dubey, the petitioner as Principal of the College. Sri Dhrua Narain Dubey has thereafter been discharging the duty of Principal. Subsequently by order dated 2.5.2000, the said order dated 29.4.2000 was reversed and the petitioner was asked to discharge his original function. This order has since been challenged in this petition.

(2.) Sri M. D. Mishra. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by reason of the resolution dated 10.4.2000 and the approval contained in the letter dated 29.4.2000. the petitioner had acquired a valuable legal right and that Sri Dhruv Narain Shukla had retired in April, 2000. therefore, he is no more the Principal and cannot continue as Principal as of right unless his period of Principal Is extended. According to him, even if the said order is to be recalled in that event, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing before passing of the resolution dated 10.4.2000. The petitioner was never given any opportunity of hearing. The home examination is continuing and the petitioner having been incharge of the same his position cannot be disturbed and that the interest of the respondent No. 3 has been protected by securing his pay till 30.6.2000 and Sri Dhruv, Narain Shukla. respondent No. 3 will suffer neither any prejudice nor any loss, therefore, the Impugned order should be quashed.

(3.) Mr. Siddharth Shukla. learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. on the other hand, contends that the appointment of the petitioner was a stop-gap arrangement on account of illness of respondent No. 3. As soon as the respondent No. 3 recovers, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue. That apart, according to him, respondent No. 3 was never ill and it was only a mala fide attempt to humiliate and harass him. He also contends that the petitioner being the Principal in view of the Regulation No. 21 of Chapter III of the Regulation framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act. the respondent No. 3 is entitled to continue as Principal till the end of Session, namely: 30.6.2000 though he might attain the age of the superannuation in April. 2000. Sri Dhruv Narain Dubey. the petitioner having been appointed on stop-gap arrangement cannot claim any right, therefore, the petition should be dismissed.