RAM ROOP SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner Dr. Ram Roop Shukla has prayer for quashing of the order dated 2.11.1997 passed by the Director of Higher Education an the basis of which the Manager respondent No. 5 issued an order appointing the respondent No. 6 Dr. Ramacharya Misra as the Principal of Nagrik Degree College, Janghai (hereinafter referred to as the College).

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that on a permanent post of Principal in the College, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis for the period till any regularly selected candidate is selected by the Higher Education Service Commission and joins the post. The petitioner claimed benefit of regularisation of service in terms of the Clause 31 (C) of Higher Education Service Commission and has also filed a writ petition No. 33441 of 1992 which was decided on 24.10.1997 wherein it was held that the benefits of regularisation as the Principal was not available. The respondent No. 4, Higher Education Service, issued an advertisement and declared resolution 15.5.1993. No selection, however, could take place against the post of Principal of the College on account of an interim order dated 16.9.1992 passed in writ petition No. 33441 of 1992 and the communication was sent to the Director of Higher Education in this regard. One Dr. Ramhit Tripathi was assigned to the College but he did not join as the Principal. Thereafter on 31.3.1995, the name of Dr. Hansraj Tripathi was recommended tor the post of Principal of the College. The said order dated 31.3.1995 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10195 of 1995. The order of the Director of Higher Education dated 31.3.1995 appointing Dr. Hansraj Tripathi as the Principal of the said College, was quashed on 27.4.1995. The case of the petitioner is that since the Director of Higher Education has directed the Commission not to make any selection on the post of Principal of the said College, the appointment of the respondent No. 6 cannot be made.

(3.) In its counter affidavit, the respondent No. 5 has averred that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 has been given appointment and he has joined the post of Principal of the College on 3.11.1997 and that the respondent No. 6 is working as the Principal which facts have been deliberately withheld by the petitioner while filing the writ petition on 19.11.1997. It is further urged that the petitioner had earlier filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22704 of 1992, Ram Roop Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors., for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working and functioning of the petitioner of the said College and not to proceed with the process of selection for the post of Principal. In the said writ petition, an interim order in the following term was, passed on 1.7.1992- .