LAXMI NARAIN TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.7.2016 in relation to the ad hoc appointment and continuance of a Principal on officiating basis in an aided privately managed Intermediate College governed by the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Regulations framed thereunder.

(2.) The legal battle ensued for the post of Principal in Janta Inter College, Babhnan, Gonda which is duly recognized under the 1921 Act when it's regular Principal Mr. Ram Prakash Mishra died in a road accident on 15.12.2011. On the occurrence of such a vacancy ad hoc arrangement has to be made which is permissible under Section 18 of the 1982 Act. Section 18 of 1982 Act reads as under:-

(3.) It may be clarified at the outset that such ad hoc arrangement is to be made from amongst the senior-most teachers of the highest grade in the institution and the appointment has to be made of an individual who possesses the qualification to occupy the post of a Principal in terms of the Appendix appended to the Regulations framed under Chapter ­ III of the 1921 Act read with the Regulations framed under the 1982 Act. There cannot be a dispute that the Principal of an Intermediate College has to have a post-graduate degree with the experience as prescribed under the said Appendix for being appointed as a Principal. The senior-most person has to be given charge unless he is ineligible or otherwise incapable and the seniority has to be determined in terms of the Rules that provide for fixation of seniority under the Regulations and the Act. According to the appellant, he is the senior-most Teacher in the highest grade and his name had also appeared at Sl. No. 1 in the seniority list dated 21.11.2012 and as such, he was entitled for being appointed. According to the appellant, the name of Sri Krishna Dev Tripathi was shown at Sl. No.2 whereas name of Sri Satyadeo Tiwari was shown at Sl. No.11. This seniority is however being disputed by the respondent No.6. The respondent