ANURADHA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Vinay Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Committee of Management resolved to appoint/promote the petitioner on the post of Principal on ad hoc basis on 15.06.2013., as Smt. Neera Rastogi, Principal of the institution retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 15.06.2013. In pursuance of the resolution, the Management of the Committee of Management issued an order of promotion and on 20.6.2013, the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow attested the signature of the petitioner. Though the petitioner is working on the aforesaid post since 15.06.2013, yet till date salary of the said post has not been paid. Being aggrieved, she moved a representation to the opposite party No.4 and as no order has been passed on the said representation, she filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) Petitioner's Counsel further submits that she does not want to press the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, but restricts her prayer to the extent that the representation moved before the opposite party No.4 may be directed to be decided by him, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others, 1998 5 SCC 87, expeditiously, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.