WAHIDUDDIN MALIK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is an admitted position between the parties that respondent no. 4 is the senior most teacher in the institution in question and he was found suitable to work as Officiating Principal. Only ground of challenge to the order dated 13.2.2015 passed by the Regional Level Committee is that respondent no. 4 had refused to accept to work as Officiating Principal of the institution on earlier occasion and hence on a further application moved by him that he was wrongly found fit to discharge the duties of Officiating Principal.

(2.) CONTENTION is that the vacancy on the post of Principal occurred on 30.6.2013 on account of retirement of the then incumbent. Respondent no. 4 by a letter dated 24.8.2013 in writing had refused to accept the responsibility on account of his illness. As such charge of the Officiating Principal was ultimately given to the petitioner on 24.8.2013. Respondent no. 4 had worked as an Officiating Principal from 1.7.2013 to 18.8.2013. As he had refused to discharge the duties by submitting a letter in writing, he is not entitled to be given charge of the Officiating Principal again. A writ petition was filed by respondent no. 4 in which a direction was given to the District Inspector of Schools, Basti to decide the representation after granting opportunity to both the parties. The District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 11.11.2014 rejected the claim of respondent no. 4 against which appeal was filed under Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act before the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee had illegally accepted the claim of respondent no. 4 to continue as Officiating Principal and further directed for recovery of salary of the Officiating Principal from the petitioner.

(3.) TO substantiate his assertion that once refused, respondent could not be allowed to officiate as Principal, against the samevacancy, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Archana Singh (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 3 UPLBEC 2348.