AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. R.C. Dwivedi for respondent no. 8 and Sri. V.K. Singh for respondent no. 9.
The prayer made in the present petition is very peculiar and that is for initiating an enquiry and declaring the appointment of the respondent no. 9 made in 1987 to be illegal. The petitioner claims that he has every right to challenge the same as his seniority is being affected.
The petitioner has already filed writ petition no 23240 of 2007 in respect of his seniority. Apart from this, the petitioner had approached this court by filing writ petition no. 48127 of 2009 challenging the notification of the Board in relation to sending of names of two senior most teachers. The third writ petition was filed by the petitioner in relation to the claim of his functioning as officiating Principal. Writ petition no. 23240 of 2007 is still pending and writ petition no. 48127 of 2009 was dismissed enabling the petitioner to file an appropriate application in earlier writ petition no. 23240 of 2007. The aforesaid dispute with regard to the claim of the petitioner is already engaging the attention of this Court.
So far as the appointment of the respondent no. 9 is concerned, with Sri. R.C. Dwivedi contends that as a matter of fact, the services of the respondent no. 9 has been regularized in the year 2003. The said regularization has not been challenged till date.
In view of this, the claim of the petitioner to question the appointment without any challenge to the regularization, that too even after 22 years, cannot be entertained in the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.Reference may be had to the decision of this Court reported in 1986 UPLBEC page 44 (Vijai Narain Sharma Vs. DIOS Etawah & others).
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.