LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-131

DHARAM VIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On March 31, 2011
DHARAM VIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court.-This appeal is by the senior most teacher in the lecturers grade of Saraswati Bal Mandir, Uchchatar Madhyamik Vldyalaya, Jaunpur claiming his entitlement to function as the ad hoc Principal of the Institution which is duly recognized and governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

(2.) THE appellant being unsuccessful before the learned single Judge has preferred this appeal also questioning the validity of the order dated 16.9.2010 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has called upon the Manager of the Institution to issue a letter of appointment to the respondent No. 6 treating him to have been validly selected against the post under the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education [Services Selection Boards] Act, 1982 read with the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules, 1998.

(3.) THE appellant has assailed the order on the same grounds as taken before the learned single Judge. Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conclusion drawn by the learned single Judge is erroneous and he relies on certain decisions to substantiate the same. THE contention raised is that the entire action was highly belated, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 6 had allegedly made a complaint on 14.7.2005 and then filed a writ petition after 4 years in the year 2009 for a decision on such a complaint. It is urged that neither there was any proof of the complaint being made nor was it entertainable after a lapse of three years of the selections nor was any writ petition entertainable for consideration of his request after a lapse of seven years of the selections. It is contended that any direction obtained by the respondent No. 6 to decide his representation would not be a sufficient explanation for the laches. It is urged that if the Board had cancelled the appointment of the selected candidate Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh then a vacancy had arisen, and such a substantive vacancy has to be readvertised and filled up de-novo under the provisions of the 1982 Act read with the 1998 Rules. THE respondent No. 6 cannot be inserted on the said fresh vacancy which has arisen due to the departure of Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh.