RAM JEET TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Special Appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 7.9.1992 passed by a Single Judge of this Court, adjudication is sought on the question as to whether Ram Jit Tewari appellant or M. D. Pandey respondent No. 4 is entitled to hold the post of Principal of Brajendra Mani INter College, Kohindaur, District Pratapgarh. State of U. P. and the District INspector of Schools, Pratapgarh are respondents No. 1 and 2 to this Special Appeal and the Committee of Management of the said INtermediate College is respondent No. 3. This controversy has arisen in the circumstances appearing hereinafter.

(2.) SRI Jagdeo Prasad Misra was regularly appointed Principal of the said SRI Brajendra Mani Inter College (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'). He retired from service on 30.6.1988 on attaining the age of superannuation. Immediately before his retirement, SRI J. P. Misra addressed a letter jointly to the Chairman/President of the Managing Committee and its Secretary enquiring from them as to whom he should hand over charge on his retirement. In that letter, he mentioned that respondent No. 4 was senior-most lecturer of the College having been appointed on 12.8:69 and the second senior-most lecturer was the appellant. On this letter of the retiring Principal, the Secretary of the Managing Committee made an endorsement to the President/Chairman of the Committee stating that SRI Jagdeo Prasad Misra was superannuating on 30.6.1988 and respondent No. 4 was the senior-most lecturer of the College and, therefore, he recommended that the charge of the post of Principal be given to respondent No. 4. This recommendation was accepted by President/Chairman on 1.7.1988. In pursuance of this order, a letter of appointment dated 30.6.1988 was issued under the signatures of Chairman/President of the Managing Committee appointing respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the College. However, no resolution of the Managing Committee appointing respondent No. 4 to the post of Principal was passed. It was mentioned in this letter of appointment that respondent No. 4 was being appointed purely on ad hoc basis and his appointment shall last till a suitable candidate was made available by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') or till any other decision was taken by the Management. In pursuance of this appointment letter, the respondent No. 4 started working as Principal of the said College. On 29.10.1988, the Managing Committee of the College passed a resolution approving ad hoc appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post of Principal. This appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 19.5.1989 for payment of salary under the provisions of U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. In the said letter of approval, it was mentioned that the approval was given for appointment under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the appointment was purely temporary and would last till a candidate selected by the Board was available.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, it may be mentioned that in the writ petitions this Court passed several interim orders directing that status quo be maintained regarding the post of Principal. The appellant had proceeded on earned leave and respondent No. 4 was again given charge by the management.