AWADHESH KUMAR Vs. MAGHDH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 7 and also learned counsel for the University. By Annexure -2 dated 23.8.2013, petitioner was made Incharge Principal of T.S. College, Hisua, on retirement of the regular Principal. Now he is aggrieved by the notification dated 7.12.2013, as contained in Annexure -6, by which respondent No. 7 has been made Incharge Principal.

(2.) SUBMISSION of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that Agrawal Commission had approved services of petitioner in the Department of Political Science with effect from 12.4.1977, vide Annexure -7 with the rejoinder, whereas it approved services of respondent No. 7 in the Department of Geography with effect from 29.6.1978. Hence, petitioner had overall senior over the respondent No. 7 on the basis of his length of services and, therefore, he should have been continued as Incharge Principal, awaiting appointment of regular Principal in the College. For this, learned counsel has placed reliance upon an order of this Court dated 28.1.2003 passed in CWJC No. 12750 of 2002, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure -8 with the rejoinder.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent -University has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra ( : (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 465) : (2013 (1) PLJR (SC) 84) and submits that holding a post of Incharge Principal is not a substantive appointment in terms of any Statute or law. He submits that this is purely a stop -gap arrangement. Hence, he submits that, since no substantive right of the petitioner is violated, this writ application is not maintainable.