GIRIJA PRASAD DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri G.C.Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 5. As per office report dated 17.09.2004, no power has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.6, i.e. the Committee of Management of Sri Shiv Sanatan Dharam Sanskrit Pathshala, Belwai, District Sultanpur, which, therefore, is unrepresented. However, the matter being old and with counter and rejoinder affidavits having been already exchanged, the petition is being decided finally.

(2.) The present Writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay the prescribed salary and consequential benefit of service to the petitioner for the post of Principal of Sri Shiv Sanatan Dharam Sanskrit Pathshala, Belwai, District Sultanpur. Further reliefs of arrears of salary for the said post and for regularisation of services on the post of Principal of the said institution have also been claimed. However, in view of the subsequent developments also, learned counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the prayer with regard to regularisation of services.

(3.) As per the averments made in the writ petition, the College in question was affiliated to the Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwa-Vidyalaya, Varanasi and at the time of filing of the writ petition, it had been recognised as a Post-Graduate College. It has been stated that the post of Principal fell vacant on 30.06.1982 due to the superannuation of the earlier Principal of the College and the petitioner being the senior-most Teacher was appointed on the said vacancy. Although the Writ Petition states that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Principal on adhoc basis but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was actually appointed on the post of Principal on officiating basis and was not promoted on the said post on adhoc basis. He has indicated the supplementary affidavit filed subsequently in the year 2015 to buttress the submission that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Principal only on officiating basis and not on ad hoc basis. He has also submitted that the difference in salary for the post of Principal is being sought by the petitioner only on the basis that he was appointed on officiating basis and was not actually promoted on adhoc basis. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the pleadings as well as the prayer in the petition is being looked into on the basis that the petitioner was officiating on the post of Principal and had not been promoted on adhoc basis on the said post.