LAWS(ALL)-1998-7-7

RAM DAS UPADHYA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On July 31, 1998
RAM DAS UPADHYA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. In Writ Petition No. 13591 of 1988, the petitioner, who was a lecturer in Parvati Rastriya Inter College, Sidhpur, Etah, was appointed in the post of Principal on ad hoc basis, in the post whereof a substantive vacancy was created due to retirement of erstwhile Principal on 31-6-1985. The said vacancy was notified to the Commission. However, the Com mission did not appoint any principal on the said post within the stipulated period. Therefore, the committee of management had appointed the petitioner as Principal on ad hoc basis and sought for approval of his appointment from the D. I. O. S. , who having initially accorded approval on 13th August, 1987, ultimately had cancelled the said approval by a letter dated 17- 6-1988 contained in Annexure -5 on the ground that despite several reminders the com mittee of management had not forwarded the names of two seniormost teachers. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) MR. Pradeep Kumar Saxena, learned Counsel for the contends that non-sending of names of two seniormost teachers cannot be a ground for cancella tion of the approval. Therefore, the order dated 17-6-1988 is liable to be quashed. He further, contends that no one else senior to the petitioner had ever led any claim to the said post. If the petitioner's appoint ment on the said post is unopposed, it is incumbent upon the D. I. O. S. to grant ap proval and he cannot cancel such approval on the alleged ground of non-furnishing of names of seniormost teachers. His third contention was that the question of seniority between three seniormost teachers being involved in Writ Petition No. 9242 of 1980 wherein an interim order was issued and neither respondent No. 3 and 4 nor the petitioner was to be granted selection grade in the meantime, there fore, by virtue of this dispute of seniority between those three persons, the petitioner was to be treated as seniormost teacher and, therefore there was no dis pute that he was the senior most in the lecturer's grade for being appointed on the post of ad hoc Principal.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Rai sub mits that even if the operation of the order dated 17-6-1988 has been stayed, but the same was subject to the result of the writ petition. The petitioner can claim the scale of Principal provided he is successful in Writ Petition No. 13591 of 1988. Ac cording to him, the grant of scale of pay of Principal to the petitioner is dependent on the result of the first petition.