AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition in question has been filed questioning the validity of the order dated 21.08.2010 passed by District Inspector of Schools wherein orders have been passed asking Managing Committee of the institution to ensure joining of Dr. Hari Virendra Singh as Principal of the institution.
Brief background of the case is that in the district of Mathura there is recognized institution known as Sri Krishna Chaitanya Inter College, Nagdgaon Mathura. Said institution is duly covered by the provisions of U.P. Act No. II of 1921; U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and the 1998 Rules framed thereunder. Qua the said institution selection panel of Principal was notified on 18.08.2003 and same could not be acted upon due to pendency of the litigation before this Court and ultimately before Hon''ble the Supreme Court culminating in judgment in the case of Balbir Kaur and Another Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and Others, . In the said select list so prepared wherein one Prem Dutt Mishra was empaneled at serial No. 1. Said incumbent has already attained the age of superannuation and the candidate who was placed at serial No. 2 Dr. Hari Virendra Singh was appointed by the Managing Committee on 17.11.2008 in compliance of the order of District Inspector of Schools for enforcement of select panel. Petitioner''s contention is that despite of giving various opportunity Dr. Hari Virendra Singh has never joined in the institution and then writ petition was filed before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35392 of 2010 with the prayer that District Inspector of Schools should recommend the name of candidate who has been placed at serial No. 3 as per the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 so that regular appointment on the post of Principal of the institution can be made. This Court on 01.07.2010 passed following order which is being quoted below.
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State-respondents.
The vacancy on the post of Principal in Sri Krishna Chaitanya Inter College, Nandgaon, Mathura was subject matter of Advertisement No. 1/2000. The select panel was notified on 18.8.2003, however, the same could not be acted upon due to pendency of the proceedings before the High Court and ultimately before the Hon''ble Supreme Court culminating the Judgment in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and Ors. reported in 2008 (3) ESC 409 (SC).
Under the select list, one Shri Prem Dutt Mishra has been empanelled at serial No. 1. He has already attained the age of superannuation.
The candidate at serial No. 2, Dr. Hari Virendra Singh was issued appointment letter on 17.11.2008 in compliance to the letter of District Inspector of Schools for enforcing the select panel. It is stated that despite necessary information Dr. Hari Virendra Singh has not joined the institution till date. The D.I.O.S. himself on 27.4.2010 issued a letter to Hari Virendra Singh for joining the institution along with original testimonials within one week of the receipt of the letter failing which further action as per law shall be taken. He has not replied for joining. Hence appointment letter has to be issued in favour of Sri Mohan Lal Dabra who has been placed at serial No. 3 in the select panel. The Committee of Management forwarded a letter dated 26.5.2010 requiring the D.I.O.S. to recommend the name of the candidate at serial No. 3 in accordance with Rule 13 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act 1982 so that regular appointment on the post of Principal of the Institution may be made. No action has been taken thereon. Hence this petition.
The issue to be examined is as to whether Dr. Hari Virendra Singh respondent No. 5 has responded to the appointment letter issued in his favour within time prescribed or not. If the answer is the negative further action has to be taken in accordance with law without delay.
In view of the same let the grievance of the petitioner be appropriately examined by District Inspector of School, Mathura at the earliest.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation ventilating all his grievances before respondent No. 3 within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. On such a representation being made, the respondent No. 3 shall call for the records and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within four weeks after affording opportunity to respondent No. 4 & 5 all consequential action be taken thereafter immediately.
Pursuant to order passed by this Court notices were issued from the office of District Inspector of Schools and in the said proceedings Manager as well as Dr. Hari Virendra Singh appeared and the District Inspector of Schools noted the respective contention of the Managing Committee of the institution and Dr. Hari Virendra Singh as well as Mohan Lal Dabral, respondent No. 4 and thereafter order impugned has been passed wherein Managing Committee of the institution has been asked to ensure joining of Dr. Hari Virendra Singh. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed.
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case repeated opportunities were given to Dr. Hari Virendra Singh to join in the institution on the post of Principal but he did not turn up for joining in the institution. Once he has been given full opportunity to join in the institution concerned then by no stretch of imagination such direction could have been given as has been done in the present case, as it gives time to join even beyond reasonable period, as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed.
Countering the said submission Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that District Inspector of Schools in the present has examined the respective claim of the parties concerned and has found conduct of the Managing Committee of the institution to be motivated one as there being no order passed by District Inspector of Schools straight away appointment letter has been issued in favour of Mohan Lal Dabral, as such in the facts of the case writ petition should not be entertained and it should be dismissed specially when none of the legal right of the petitioner are infringed.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case that select panel was notified on 18.08.2003 and on account of on going litigation before this Court and ultimately before Hon''ble Apex Court and after the judgment has been delivered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Another Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and Others, select panel was sought to be implemented and given effect to and Dr. Hari Virendra Singh was issued appointment letter on 17.11.2008 pursuant to letter dated 22.10.08 send by District Inspector of Schools Contention of Dr. Hari Virendra Singh has been that on 29.11.2008 he had gone to the institution to join in the institution but Managing Committee of the institution did not ensure his joining of in the institution and at that point of time Officiating Principal, Teachers and Clerk were present and in this regard necessary information has been given to the District Inspector of Schools. Dr. Hari Virendra Singh submitted that totally incorrect statement of fact has been report vide letter dated 02.12.2008 that Dr. Hari Virendra Singh has not joined in the institution whereas fact of the matter is that on 29.11.2008 he had gone in the institution but he was not permitted to join in the institution. The Managing Committee of the institution had been contending that Dr. Hari Virendra Singh was given repeated reminders sent on 09.04.2010, 27.04.2010 and 07.05.2010 respectively but at no point of time he reported for duties and thereafter writ petition in question had been filed by the Managing Committee of the institution and before any order could be passed by District Inspector of Schools in favour of Mohan Lal Dabral at its own level proceeded to issue appointment order in favour of Mohan Lal Dabral on 26.05.2010. District Inspect of the School in the present case has examined the claim and counter claim set up that appointment letter has been issued to Dr. Hari Virendra on 17.11.2008 and therein it was mentioned that within one week requisite documents be submitted and from the in earlier institution wherein Dr. Hari Virendra Singh was functioning should produce "No Dues Certificate" be produced. On 22.11.2008 for issuance of amendment letter. Thereafter Committee of Management Dr. Hari Virendra Singh requested of the institution sent letter on 26.11.2008, 02.12.2008, 09.04.2010, 27.04.2010 and 07.05.2010 mentioning therein that Dr. Hari Virendra Singh should join. District Inspector of Schools has noted that Dr. Hari Virendra Singh did not turn up and had been requesting nor change in the contents of appointment letter. District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to mention that Dr. Hari virendra Singh never showed disinclination to function and without there being any authorization appointment letter has been issued in favour of Mohan Lal Dabral. In these circumstances and in this background directives have been issued for ensuring joining of Dr. Hari Virendra Singh. Dr. Hari Virendra Singh has categorically mentioned that after the letter dated 07.0.4.2010 had been written then reply qua the same was got received on 16.04.2010 and then 5 on 09.04.2010 with new condition new letter was issued and on 18.04.2010 request was made to Manager to remove said condition in respect of these letter. This is not at all case of Managing Committee that no such letter has been sent. Again Managing committee send letter on 27.04.2010 and Dr. Hari Virendra had again requested for relaxation on 04.05.2010. Thereafter letter was sent by Management on 7.5.2010, and Dr. Hari Virendra Singh claims he presented himself for joining on 17.5.2010, but was not permitted to join. Once repeated correspondence were on going and it was precise case of Dr. Hari Virendra Singh that on 17.05.2010 he appeared but he was not permitted to join in the institution. In these circumstances and in this background without there being any order in favour of Mohal Lal Dabral issuance of appointment letter to him clearly shows that action of the Committee of Management lacked bonafides and once repeated correspondence were on going then categorical reply ought to have been given by the petitioner that said condition could not be relaxed by any means and that Dr. Hari Virendra is not joining in the institution. Then District Inspector of Schools would have intervened in the matter and remedied the situation, by examining the conduct of Dr. Hari Virendra Singh.
Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Pramod Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2010 (6) ADJ 624 (DB) decided on 21.05.2010. Said judgment will not come to the rescue of the petitioner.
The special features of the said case has been noted in detail in paragraphs, 29,25,26,27 disentitling Principal to get order in his favour, and proper exercise of discretion by District Inspector of Schools in issuing appointment letter in favour of Dr. Pramod Pal Singh. Here before District Inspector of Schools could intervene, Management on its own proceeded to issue appointment letter in favour of Mohan Lal Dabral. Preposition laid down is not disputed, but here facts said principles are not applicable.
At last Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate has expressed apprehensions that again dilatory tactics would be adopted by Dr. Hari Virendra Singh.
Consequently, in the facts of the case Managing Committee is directed co comply with the said order and in case any difficulty arises, the matter be reported to District Inspector of Schools, and thereafter District Inspector of School shall look into the said complaint and finalize the same after summoning both Dr. Hari Virendra Singh and the Manager both in his office, within next six weeks thereafter, so that office of Principal is filled at the earliest.
Disposed of. No orders as to cost.