PREM MURTI DIXIT Vs. SATYAVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. A. Sharma, J. The permanent Principal of Bhan Pratap A. S. Intermediate College, Jahangirabad, Bulandshahr after referred to as the College) retired from service on 30-6-1991 ; thereby causing a substantive vacancy on the post of the Principal. Shri Prem Murti Dixit (hereinafter referred to as Dixit) being the seniormost lecturer in the College was appointed by the management as officiating Principal with effect from 1-7- 1991 After haying worked as officiating Principal for about one year and four months Dixit on 4-11-1992 submitted a letter of resignation to the management of the College, mentioning therein that he is unable to discharge the duties of officiating Principal on account of mental agony he has suffered due to disappearance of his younger daughter. He accordingly requested for acceptance of his resignation. The management on 11-11-1992 accepted his resignation and on the same date appointed another lecturer Sri Satyavir Singh Raghuvanshi (hereinafter referred to as Raghuvanshi) who was next in the seniority, as officiating Principal. Dixit stopped functioning as officiating Principal after 18-11-1992 and in his place Raghuvanshi started working as officiating Principal with effect from 19-12-1992 After more than a year Dixit wrote a letter dated 13 12-1923 to the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the D. I O S ) mentioning therein that he is now again willing to act as officiating Principal of the College. D. I. O. S. vide letter dated 16-7-1994 directed the Manager of the College to hand over charge of the post of acting Principal of the College to Dixit. Manager thereupon made a representation before the D. I. O. S. against the above order, but the D. I. O. S. issued another order dated 20-9-1994 asking the management to hand over charge of the post of officiating Principal to Dixit. Raghuvanshi, who was working as officiating Principal since 19-11-1992, has filed the writ petition before this Court challenging the above orders of D. I. O. S. This writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on 14-11-1994 Being aggrieved, Dixit has filed this Special Appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) EARLIER Regulation 2 of. Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, provided for appointment of the head of the institution both against the substantive and temporary vacancies. After enactment of U. P. Secondary Education Services Com mission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the appointment to the posts of teachers and the Principal of an intermediate college can only be made on the basis of the recommendation by the Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission ). Act also contains the provisions in Section 18 for appoint ment of ad hoc teacher, if the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate within certain period after the vacancy was duly communicated to it. State Government has also issued Removal of Orders, under Section 33 of the Act making the provisions for tad hoc appointment against both, substantive and short-term vacancies.

(3.) THE la*v laid down in Shevraj Singh v. Shri Devji Mai Asha Ram Paliwal (supra), and other decisions referred to above cannot apply to the instant case for two reasons, viz. (i) when Dixit's resignation dated 4-11-1992 was accepted by the management of the College on 18-11-1992, he did not raise any objection against it. He also did not raise any objection against the appointment and continuance of Raghuvanshi as officiating Principal of the College in his place with effect from 19-11-1992. On 23-12- 1992 Dixit appeared before the D. I. O. S. and has expressed his inability to work as Officiating Principal. He not only acquiesced in the matter but also voluntarily gave up his claim to the post of officiating Principal. He thus relinquished the said promotional post voluntarily and intentionally. In such circumstances it is not open to him to lay his claim to that post again, (ii) It is true that a teacher can resign only by giving three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof. It is also true that notice given in this connection by the teacher should not expire in the months of January, February and March. But if the teacher has resigned voluntarily and thereafter he has stopped functioning willingly on the promotional post, the management cannot force him to work. THE management has to run the College and for running College there has to be a Principal after the person has relinquished his job voluntarily the management has to make alternative arrangement by making fresh appointment of another eligible person in his place. Such a case would not be a simple case of resignation. It will also be a case of intentional and deliberate giving up of the promotional post for which compliance with Regulation 29 is not necessary.