BRIJENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. C.K. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an advertisement dated 3 -7 -1990 contained in Annexure 1, issued by the Manager of Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir, Vyayara College, Jhansi, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Principal in the said College. The case of the petitioner is that on 9 -9 -1990, Sri Mool Chand Sikaria resigned from the post of Principal and thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Principal by the management of the said college. The signature of the petitioner was also attested by the District Inspector of Schools Jhansi vide Annexure 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the management has no jurisdiction to issue the advertisement in question. It was directed by order dated 18 -7 -1990 that the respondents may be served by the petitioner out side Court. The petitioner has filed an affidavit of service, indicating that both the respondents were personally served on 21st & 22nd July, 1990. The respondents have not entered appearance and the petition was heard ex -parte.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is directed against the Manager of the above mentioned College and Bundelkhand Seva Mandal, Jhansi, both of whom are non statutory bodies. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Kumari Rama Chauhan v. Committee of Management,, 1983 UPLBEC 781 and has contended that the law is settled that a writ petition filed against even statutory, body is maintainable if such petition is for enforcement and performance of any legal obligation or duty imposed on such committee by a statute. In this connection, the contention of the learned counsel is that the above mentioned college is a recognised institution and is impugned by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is submitted that Section 16 -G of that Act provided that every person employed in a recognised institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by regulation and any agreement between the management and such employee in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or with the regulations, shall be void. The impugned advertisement has nothing to do with any condition of service of the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be held on the basis of Section 16 -G that the respondents have failed to perform any statutory duty and as such the writ petition is maintainable.

(3.) THEN it was contended by the learned counsel that it will be deemed that the petitioner was appointed as an adhoc Principal under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 and so would be entitled to continue in service till a candidate recommended by Commission joins the post. This contention has no force. It is stated in paras 13 and 15 of the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed on a permanent basis in the vacancy caused by the resignation of the earlier Principal and continues to work as Principal on permanent basis since the date of taking there is no vacancy to be filled in. This is contrary to the plea now being raised that the petitioner was appointed as Principal on adhoc basis. However, Section IS enables the management to appoint adhoc teacher in a case where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as teacher within one year from the date of such notification. It has not been shown that the management had notified the vacancy and the conditions precedent were' satisfied for the appointment of petitioner as adhoc Principal. So, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed as adhoc Principal under Section 18 of the Act and has a right to continue in service till a person recommended by the Commission joins the post.