HEM LATA AGARWAL Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Th e petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.6.2002 of the Manager, Crosthwaite Girls College, Allahabad, which states that the management committee of the college in its meeting dated 7.6.2002 had resolved to relieve the petitioner as in-charge Principal of the institution and also communicating that the respondent No. 3 Smt. Asha Pandey, who was given charge of the post of Principal during the period when the petitioner was under suspension, would continue to hold the charge. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that the order is arbitrary and does not contain any reason and was passed without opportunity afforded to the petitioner and also on the ground that no approval under Section 21 of the U, P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been obtained.

(2.) Undisputedly, the petitioner is the seniormost teacher in the institution and it is submitted that she is entitled to officiate as Principal under Regulation 2 (3) of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act and also to be paid salary for the post of Principal as the vacancy against which the petitioner was appointed has lasted for more than one month. The post of Principal in the institution had fallen vacant on 30.6.2001 and the petitioner was given charge with effect from 1.7.2001. Reliance is placed by the petitioner upon Section 18 of the Act and it is submitted that under that provision, the seniormost teacher in the institution shall be promoted on ad hoc basis as Principal. In the counter-affidavit filed by Prakash Dubey, Manager the stand taken Is that Smt. Sailja Rani Srivastava, who was discharging the duties of Principal attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2001 and the petitioner was handed over the charge as officiating Principal with effect from 1.7.2001 and the papers for approval of her appointment were sent to the District Inspector of Schools but no order has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools ; that the petitioner, who was holding charge as officiating Principal indulged in various acts of misconduct, acts of financial irregularity and she was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet was served upon her on 12.4.2002 and after giving full opportunity of hearing, disciplinary proceedings were concluded and the enquiry committee constituted in this regard made recommendation on 28.5.2002 for discontinuance of the petitioner as officiating Principal and for awarding her adverse entry and the papers have been transmitted on 10.6.2002 to the District Inspector of Schools for necessary action. It is stated that the order dated 11.6.2002 was passed after giving full opportunity of hearing.

(3.) Notice was issued to the third respondent by registered post. Office report indicates that notice was sent to respondent No. 3 by registered post with acknowledgment due fixing 26.8.2002. The third respondent had also filed Special Appeal No. 773 of 2002 against the interim order dated 8.7.2002 in this writ petition. In the circumstances, notice would be deemed to have been served upon her. She has, however, not appeared but her absence does not come in the way of the petition being heard because it has been deemed that she was served. Even otherwise, as admittedly the petitioner is the senior-most teacher in the Institution and she was given charge of the post of Principal, the rights, of the third respondent would come into existence only if it is found that the impugned order reliving the petitioner was valid and effective.