SURENDRA PRASAD AGNIHOTRI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the above appeals a common question of law is involved and, as such have been taken up and heard together.

(2.) The writ petitioner-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants') were appointed as Officiating Principal in the respective institutions on the basis of their seniority and were paid salary in the pay-scale of Principal. Their officiating appointment continued for long and in the meantime they attained the age of superannuation in the middle of the academic session and, as such by virtue of Regulation 21 contained in Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 they became entitle to function till the end of the academic session i.e. 30th June, 2010. However, by the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 16.11.2009 and that of the Manager of the Institution dated 13.11.2009 respectively they have been denied functioning as Officiating Principal and it has been provided that they would continue only as a Teacher till 30th June.

(3.) The aforesaid orders were assailed by the appellants by filing separate writ petitions with a further prayer to allow them to work as Officiating Principal and to continue to pay salary of the post of Principal. The writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Officiating Principal has no right to the post and appellants are only entitled to continue as Teachers till the end of academic session. In dismissing the writ petitions reliance has been placed upon earlier Division Bench decisions of the Court.