LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-29

SHIV KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On January 13, 2004
SHIV KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the additional chief standing counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the opposite party No. 1 Director of Education (Secondary) as contained in Annexure-1 and he has also sought a relief by way of mandamus commanding to opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 to superannuate Shri Jagdish Prasad Mishra opposite party No. 6 who is working as Principal in Janta Inter College, Amdahi, District Gonda.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that on the recommendation of the Director of Education, the Governor has granted two years extension of service to, Shri Jagdish Prasad Mishra Principal Janta Inter College, Amdahi, Gonda, in view of the policy of the Government as contained in Government Order No. 1772/15-14 (30) (67)/71, dated 6th May, 1982 and Government Order No. 1599/15-14-86-30 (67) (71), dated 4th December, 1986 and the Government Order No. 2443/15 (13) 91 dated 23rd October, 1991. The opposite party No. 6 Shri Jagdish Prasad Mishra was awarded State Teacher Award and according to the policy of the Government the teachers who are awarded State Teachers Award are allowed to continue for a further period of two years after the date of superannuation. The petitioner claims himself to be a seniormost teacher in the College. He claims his right to officiate as Principal in case the opposite party No. 6 who has been honoured with a State Award is retired without giving extension of two years service. Further the case of the petitioner is that he was duly selected for the post of Principal by Service Selection Board but at the same time he has admitted in the petition that the selection has been quashed vide order dated 4.11.2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42133 of 1999, Vashist Deo Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors., by Division Bench of this Court and it has been argued that the opposite party No. 6 cannot take the advantage of this judgment.