PRAMOD PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present special appeal has been filed against the order of learned single Judge disposing of the writ petition of the petitioner appellant directing him to make a representation ventilating all his grievances before the Joint Director of Education within two weeks and Joint Director of Education was directed to dispose of the representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and perusing the record of the office of the District Inspectors of Schools and to decide the representation by means of reasoned and speaking order according to law within a period of six weeks from the date the representation is made. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant petitioner has preferred the present special appeal.

(3.) In short, the brief facts giving rise to the matter in controversy are that the petitioner was initially selected on the post of Lecturer (History) by the Commission and was appointed in Government Inter College, Shree Nagar, Garhwal. By that time, the State of Uttarakhand had not come in existence and the same was in the territorial jurisdiction of the U.P. The advertisement for selection and appointment on the post of Principal in different inter colleges of the State of U.P. was made prior to the separation of Uttarakhand State out of U.P. The petitioner consequently submitted his application form and after due procedure, was selected by the Commission. The placement of the petitioner after due selection process was shown in Baraili Inter College Barauli Rao, district Aligarh alongwith respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 with a view to take advantage was taking extension of time before the Management/Principal for late submission of joining. The matter relating to selection was challenged in 2003 before Hon'ble Court by means of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition and by connecting several matters in a bunch of several cases, which was allowed by the order of Hon'ble Court. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and order maintaining status quo was passed in 2008. The Apex Court passed a decision holding that process in pursuance to the advertisement of Commission is valid one and departmental authorities had initiated the process of selection of placement of the selected candidates. On 17.8.2008, the management of the institution asked respondent No. 5 for submitting joining, failing which candidate No. 2 was offered appointment. On 16.10.2008, respondent No. 3 District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter to respondent No. 5 extending ten days' time for joining on the post of Principal clearly mentioning that in case of default the candidate at serial No. 2 be offered appointment and joining but no response was given by respondent No. 5 on the said letter. The District Inspector of Schools further extended time for five days to respondent No. 5 with the same condition that in case of default, the candidate at serial No. 2 will be offered appointment and joining but respondent No. 5 did not respond to letter dated 3.11.2008. Hence, the District Inspector of Schools directed the Management of the institution for issuing appointment letter in favour of the petitioner immediately. On 20.12.2008, respondent No. 5 further granted for extension of time for joining on the said post before the Management of the institution. The Manager allowed her six months' time for joining but the said correspondence between the respondent No. 5 and the management was neither communicated to the departmental authorities nor to the petitioner. Hence, the District Inspector of Schools sent a letter to the petitioner mentioning therein that despite order the petitioner did not submit his joining and the petitioner appellant was again directed to appear before the institution for his joining vide letter dated 19.2.2009. On 16.12.2009, the Manager of the institution with a view to provide benefit to the Officiating Principal, did not permit the petitioner to join on the post of Principal. On being aware of the fact the Manager submitted application before the District Inspector of Schools on 16.12.2009. On the said application the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 17.12.2009 directed the petitioner to submit joining for the post in question. In compliance of the order dated 17.12.2009 the petitioner appellant on 22.12.2009 submitted his application before the management seeking permission to submit his joining on the post in question but no heed was paid to his application and necessary action required was not taken. On 29.12.2009 again the District Inspector of Schools issued an order directing the petitioner , to submit his joining before the institution immediately. The petitioner appellant aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the management for joining on the post in question moved a representation before the Joint Director of Schools, Aligarh Division on 11.1.2010 with a prayer to issue necessary directions. On 18.2.2010, the District Inspector of Schools getting aware of the illegal hindrances on the part of the management in joining of the petitioner, wrote a letter to the Regional Joint Director of Education mentioning all the facts with request for appointing authorised controller in the institution. On 22.2.2010 the petitioner appellant appeared for joining before the Manager but simple assurance was given and nothing material was done and the petitioner was not allowed to join which fact was informed by the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner appellant informed that Manager in collusion with the officiating Principal is not permitting him to join on the said post. The officiating Principal Sri Suraj Pal Singh colluded with the Manager was not willing to leave the post of Principal at any cost. With this thought in mind he approached before the Hon'ble Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2608 of 2010 claiming continuance on the post in question on the ground that candidate at serial Nos. 1 and 5 had lost their lien for the post. The said writ petition was dismissed on 9.2.2010. On 23.2.2010, the petitioner further sent a representation to the District Inspector of Schools narrating the illegal hindrance caused by the management in collusion with the officiating Principal. On 23.2.2010, on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner the District Inspector of Schools passed an order directing the Manager to accept the joining of the petitioner failing which action will be taken in accordance with the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and stating that for taking such action the Manager shall be solely responsible. Again on 24.2/2010, the petitioner appeared before the Manager for submission of joining but nothing was heard. Again the petitioner informed the District Inspector of Schools about the illegal hindrance of the Manager. On 26.2.2010, the District Inspector of Schools issued an order appointing the petitioner as Principal by exercising powers conferred under Section 17 (2), (3) of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 directing the management to accept the joining till 3.3.2010 over the post of Principal, failing which the payment of salary for the said post will be recovered from the Manager as arrears of land revenue. This order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools on the representation of the petitioner appellant. But despite this order the management failed to accept the joining of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 submitted her representation before the District Inspector of Schools seeking permission for her joining over the post in question. On 4.3.2010, the District Inspector of Schools issued an order to respondent No. 5 on her representation directing her to submit a reply as to why her lien is existing over the post in question. The explanation was directed to be submitted till 11.3.2010. The District Inspector of Schools further, for the reasons best known to him, referred the matter to the Commission/respondent No. 2 vide a detailed order dated 5.3.2010 seeking information as to how the lien of respondent No. 5 is existing over the post in question. On 6.3.2010, without waiting explanation from respondent No. 5 or opinion of the Commission the District Inspector of Schools has passed the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner vide its earlier order dated 26.2.2010 without any rhyme or reason saying that first claim of respondent No. 5 will be considered. On 11.3.2010, the petitioner preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13153 of 2010 before this Court challenging the order dated 6.3.2010 in which the order was passed by the learned single Judge.