HARI RAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri S. M. Nasir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. S. Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 4 and the learned standing counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 3,

(2.) Petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to handover the charge of acting principal to the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 29.1.1996. Petitioner has alleged in the petition that he was appointed as a Sanskrit Teacher in L.T. Grade on 2.7.1965 and later on he was promoted as lecturer on 1.12.1971. Sri Brij Ballabh Singh, the permanent principal of the college died on 5.9.1986 and thereafter the post of principal had fallen vacant and Sri Desh Raj Slngh was appointed as ad hoc principal of the college who submitted his resignation, on 15.4.1988, a photostate copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has also been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner is the next seniormost lecturer after opposite party No. 4 and is fully eligible for appointment as ad hoc principal but due to mala fide intention, he was ignored by the Committee of Management and the charge of acting principal was handed over to Sri Vidya Prakash Misra who was at serial No. 4 in the seniority' list. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 23rd September, 1994, a copy of which has been annexed by the opposite party No. 4 is illegal and the Committee of Management has no authority to appoint the opposite party No. 4 as ad hoc principal again as earlier he had resigned on 15.4.1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Satyavir Singh v. D.I.O.S.. Bulaadshahr and others, 7995 ALR 139. He further submits that on the representation made by the petitioner the D.I.O.S. has issued letters dated 13.7.1994 and 29.1.1996 directing the Manager of the College to handover the charge to the petitioner but inspite of the aforesaid orders the Committee of Management has paid no heed and the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court.

(3.) Sri H. S. Sahay, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 submits that the Committee of Management has not committed any illegality in passing the resolution dated 23.9.1994 by which petitioner was appointed as ad hoc principal of the college. He further submits that since 1994 opposite party No. 4 is functioning as ad hoc principal and his signatures have also been attested by the District inspector of Schools and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Committee of Management, he may approach to the Deputy Director of Eduction for redressal and the instant writ petition is not maintainable. He has further submitted that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition in the year 1996 although opposite party No. 4 was appointed in the year 1994 and laches have not been explained in the writ petition. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Jai Kishna inter College v. D.I.O.S., Basti and others. (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2088, and on the strength of the aforesaid judgment Sri Sahay submits that even if opposite party No. 4 has rendered his resignation, it cannot be treated for all time to come and the Committee of Management has rightly appointed the opposite party No. 4 as ad hoc principal.