AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Pathak for respondent No. 2 and the learned standing counsel.
The dispute in this case Is as to who is entitled to be promoted as ad hoc Principal in the Institution in question. According to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 3 UPLBEC 1551, ordinarily the seniormost teacher has the right to be appointed as ad hoc Principal. Admittedly, the petitioner is the seniormost teacher in the institution in question and hence according to Radha Raizada''s case, the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to be promoted as ad hoc Principal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court In Satya Vir Singh v. D.I.O.S., Bulandshahr, 1995 1 AWC 122, and he has emphasised on paragraphs 11 and 12 of this decision in which it has been held that once the seniormost teacher has declined to accept the post, he cannot claim the right to function as officiating Principal. In my opinion, this decision is distinguishable. In the present case, the respondent No. 2 had declined to accept the post of Principal in the year 1981, Satya Vir Singh''s case, cannot be interpreted to mean that once a person has declined to officiate as ad hoc Principal and later on the vacancy again occurs, he cannot then claim to be the officiating Principal merely because he had earlier declined. In my opinion, declining of the post is only for that particular period of time when the vacancy had arisen. It cannot be treated to amount to permanently declining the post for all times to come. Whenever the vacancy may again occur in future, the seniormost teacher may again be considered for the post of Principal according to law.
In the circumstances, there is no force in this petition. It Is accordingly dismissed.