VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri R. K. Ojha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. Since no factual controversy is involved in the present writ petition, the same is beirig disposed of at the admission stage itself with out calling for a counter- affidavit.

(2.) THE respondent Mo. 5 was appointed as an adhoc Principal in the insti tution managed by respondent No. 4. THE said respondent reached the age of su perannuation and the Committee of Management resolved to appoint the peti tioner as an ad-hoc Principal. THE committee of the management forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. THE District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order directed the Committee of Management to permit respondent No. 5 to continue as an ad-hoc Principal till the end of the academic session, i. e. , till 30. 6. 2008. THE petitioner, being the senior most teacher and being entitled to be appointed as an ad-hoc Principal has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE said provision has been interpreted in the case of Hari Om Tatsat Brahma Shukla (supra), in which the Court held- "we have considered the submissions and perused the record. In so far as the preposition that when a teacher is continuing till the end of aca demic session after attaining the age of superannuation he is not entitled for any appointment on a post other his substantive is well settled. After attaining the age of superannuation neither higher post can be con ferred nor an incumbent can claim promotion on a higher post. THE preposi tion will both apply for appointment on substantive basis or appointment on ad hoc basis. THE ad hoc appointment under section 18 of the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 is the appointment as a Principal on a higher post in a differ ent grade. During the period a person is continuing to avail the benefit of academic session after attaining the age of superannuation he is not enti tled for appointment even on ad hoc basis. THE said preposition finds full support from Division Bench judgments in Committee of Management, Jagdish Saran Rajvansi Kanya Inter College and another v. Joint Director of Education 2000 (38) ALR 623. Raja Ram Chaoudhary v. Satya Narain Gupta and others 2003 (51) ALR 277 and Division Bench judgment of R,c. Gupta (Dr.) v. State of U. P. and others. (2002) 1 UPLBEC 767. Similarly in the case of Raja Ram Choudlwry (supra), the Court held- "the contention is totally misconceived. THE purpose of extension till the end of the academic session after attaining the age of superannuation is only to secure the benefit in favour of the students and the institution as clarified by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions. THE fact that the appellant has already attained the age of superan nuation is not in dispute. Further, the fact that question of seniority has not yet been determined and on account of the appellant having attained- the age of superannuation, it has lost all its significance is also not disputed. THEse additional factors also do not justify an interference in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. "