MOHD AYYUB Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned single judge dated 3. 3. 2009 staying the operation of the order dated 11. 2. 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria disapproving the order of termination of the services of the appellant. The learned single judge has noticed the fact that the writ petitioner was appointed as the officiating principal by the committee of management in the light of the judgment in Special Appeal No. 1350 of 2008. In the institution which is a minority institution the committee had discretion to appoint a principal of its choice and the respondent no. 4 Mohd. Ayyub Khan the appellant had no right to file objections before the authority concerned. The order is an ex parte one in that it was passed before a counter affidavit was filed. There is nothing to indicate that the discretion exercised by the learned single judge at this stage suffers from any error.

(2.) IT was submitted by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant that the effect of the order of the learned single judge is to grant final relief to the writ petitioner. We are not inclined to accept this submission. It appears that the services of the appellant had been terminated and that order had been set aside and it was at that stage when the writ petition was filed. According to the counsel for the appellant the appellant had joined the institution. Counsel for the writ petitioner disputed the fact that the appellant had joined on the date when the oder in the writ petition was passed. He also submitted that on the date in question the writ petitioner was already functioning. This is therefore a disputed question of fact. It has now been brought to our notice that counter affidavit has already been filed by the appellant and it is stated by the counsel for the writ petitioner that the rejoinder affidavit would be filed within three days. In the circumstances as agree upon list the writ petition before the learned single judge in the week commencing 6th April 2009. With these observations the appeal is dismissed.