AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Brijesh Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K, Chaudhary who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties nos, 1 and 2,
The impugned order is dated 24.8.1998, passed in the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management, namely, respondents nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal, By means of the said interim order, it has been provided that one Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh shall continue to discharge the duties of the officiating principal till regular appointment is made. It appears that the judgment passed by this Court earlier dated July, 30, 1998 in writ petition no. 3056 (SS)''of 1998 filed by Bhanu Pratap Singh was not brought to the notice of the Court. The above noted writ petition was finally disposed of and it was found that the D.I.O.S. had rightly provided that Kalpnath Upadhyaya would officiate as Principal being the seniormost lecturer in the college. It was also observed that Bhanu Pratap Singh no where even claimed in the petition that he was senior to Kalp Nath Upadhyaya, The Management filed another writ petition in which the interim order impugned in this case has been passed. Before us as well it has not been submitted that Bhanu Pratap Singh is the seniormost lecturer in the institution. On the other hand, it is indicated that the matter of seniority is in dispute amongst some teachers of the college which is pending consideration of the committee of management. It is not known how the choice of Management fell upon Bhanu Pratap Singh.
Learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 and 2 submits that the said respondents have no knowledge about the order passed by this Court on July 30, 1998. Therefore, admittedly, no appeal has been filed by the management against the said order nor any petition for its review or recall on the ground that notice was not issued to the management.
It has then been submitted that the impugned order being interlocutory order an appeal would not be maintainable and in support of that contention, a decision of this Court reported in 1995(13) LCD 239, Udai Bhan Singh v. Dy. Director of Education and others has been relied. We find that in paragraph5 of the judgment, it is observed that relief which could be granted at the time of final disposal of the writ petition cannot be granted by means of an interim order unles special reasons have been indicated in clear terms, but in the case in hand that was not the position as found by the Court. Staying the operation of an order which was sought to be quashed was not held to be an order granting final relief. In the present case, we, however, find that the relief finally which could be claimed and granted only be that until regular principal is promoted or appointed some officiating arrangement has to be made. The dispute in the present writ petition also seems to be only in regard to the officiating principal and not regularly appointed principal. By the impugned order it has been provided that Bhanu Pratap singh would officiate as principal till regular appointment is made. In effect it amounts to providing final relief. Hence, in our view, the appeal is maintainable.
Admit.
Appearance on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2 has been put in through counsel Sri B.K. Chaudhary. The State Counsel has accepted notice for respondents nos. 3 to 5. The opposite parites may file their counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period.
In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order dated 24.8.98 shall remain stayed.
(Ordered accordingly)