DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 8.7.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 35950 of 2006. Devendra Singh Versus State of U.P. and others whereby the writ petition had been dismissed. The appellant has also prayed for setting aside the order dated 3.7.2006 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri, impugned in the writ petition aforesaid wherein it has been stated that as the panel which selected the appellant has been cancelled in pursuance of the decree dated 10.4.1991 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mainpuri in suit no. 103 of 1990 filed by Raghubir Singh, the appointment of the petitioner would not be in accordance with law.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Dayanand Inter College, Ghiror, Mainpuri is receiving grant-in-aid from the Government and is placed on the list of aided-college. THE appellant was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher in the college where he had been working as such. It appears that an advertisement for the post of Principal was advertised under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982. THE appellant applied for the post and was selected. His name was also recommended by the Commission by letter dated 20th December, 1984 for the post of principal. Pursuant thereof the DIOS issued order dated 9th of January, 1985 directing the Manager of the College for issuing appointment letter in favour of the appellant appointing him as duly selected principal of the Institution but before any action could be taken by the Management, the Manager of the college Sri Raghubir Singh preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13988 of 1984 challenging the advertisement for the post of principal against which the appellant had applied for. An interim order was also granted by the Court on 9.10.1984 directing that selection for the post of principal by the Commission may be held but appointment letter shall not be issued. THE interim order dated 9.10.1984 reads thus:

(3.) IT appears that the Committee of Management, however, appointed the appellant as principal of the college vide order dated 19.6.2006 in view of the directions issued in various proceedings. Consequently, the appellant claims to have joined the post of principal of the college on 30.6.2006 pursuant to the aforesaid appointment letter dated 19.6.2006. Thereafter, the Committee of Management appears to have sent a letter to the DIOS requesting him for attesting the signatures of the appellant as principal to enable him to discharge financial and administrative duties in accordance with law while working on the post of principal of the college. The DIOS vide his order dated 3.7.2006 declined to attest the signatures of the appellant on the ground that appointment of the appellant as principal of the college would be illegal in view of the judgment rendered by the Civil Judge, Mainpuri dated 10.4.91 in Suit No.103 of 1990. The order dated 3.7.2006 read thus- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court by means of Writ Petition No.35950 of 2006, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order and judgment dated 8.7.2008. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this special appeal. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.7.2008 reads thus:-