Dismissed

Committee of Management Sri Agrasen Girls Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2018WRIA/15354/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge Writ court refused to interfere with an order appointing a senior lecturer as officiating principal. The court held the petitioner misled authorities with false allegations of coercion and inadmissible correspondence, violating Article 226 principles.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without any order passed.

Committee of Management Sri Agrasen Girls… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15354 of 2018 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Sri Agrasen Girls Inter College And Another

¶3

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Sri Ashok Khare Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶6

Amendment application filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

Necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

¶9

“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 8.6.2018 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow and impugned consequential order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh (copies of impugned orders are enclosed as Annexure Nos 13 and 14 to this petition);

¶10

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to interfere in the functioning of Respondent No.5 as officiating Principal of the College till a regularly selected Principal joins the post;

¶11

(iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and in the circumstances of the case; (iv) to award costs of the petition to the Petitioners.

¶12

(v) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-06-2018 passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah (copy enclosed as Annexure No. 2 to the accompanying affidavit).”

¶13

Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent no.4, Smt. Sangeeta Singh, was working as lecturer in the petitioner No.1 institution. It is stated by Sri Prakash Padia, that the respondent no.4 Smt. Sangeeta Singh was appointed as lecturer on 14.8.1989. The respondent no.5 was appointed as lecturer in September 2008. Regularly selected Principal was Smt. Rampyari Rai who retired on 30.6.2008 on attaining the age superannuation. At that time the senior most lecturer Smt. Geeta Singh, was given the charge of officiating Principal. On certain allegations she was suspended on 5.1.2009. The suspension of the aforesaid Smt. Geeta Singh (Officiating Principal) was approved by the DIOS on 30.12.2009 on the basis of resolution of the Committee of management dated 4.1.2009. It appears

¶14

¶15

that subsequently the proceedings against the then officiating Principal Smt. Geeta Singh was withdrawn or dropped and she continued as officiating Principal till her retirement on 30.6.2015.

¶16

When the aforesaid Smt. Geeta Singh retired on 30.6.2015, the respondent no.4, claimed for an appointment as officiating Principal. Instead of appointing her as officiating Principal, the respondent No.5, Smt. Urmila Singh, who was not even lecturer on the date of occurrence of the substantive vacancy on 30.6.2008, was appointed as officiating Principal on the ground that the respondent No.4, Smt. Sangeeta Singh has declined to officiate as Principal on 2.1.2009 which was subsequently reiterated by her and even subsequently also she declined to officiate as Principal by her letter dated 23.4.2010.

¶17

The respondent no.4, Smt. Sangeeta Singh, took the stand that under coercion she was compelled to make an endorsement on the letter of the Manager dated 2.1.2009, that she does not wish to officiate as Principal for personal reason. On the very same day i.e. on 2.1.2009, she send a letter to the Manager that if the post of officiating Principal is offered to her she is ready to accept it. So far as the letter dated 23.4.2010 is concerned, it does not bear her signature. She further contended before the authorities that even there was no occasion to make an endorsement on the letter of the Manager dated 2.1.2009, inasmuch as Smt. Geeta Singh, was continuing as officiating Principal as she was suspended by the Committee of Management on 5.1.2009. She further contended that to deprive her to work as officiating Principal, the Manager has acted mala fidely and fraudulently.

¶18

On these facts, an order dated 8.6.2018 was passed by the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Lucknow, directing the respondent No.3, to examine the matter afresh and take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law, for appointment for the post of officiating Principal in the institution in question. The matter was examined by the respondent no.3, who passed the impugned order dated 29.6.2018, directing the petitioner to submit resolution to give charge of officiating Principal to the senior most Principal. Since no resolution was submitted by the petitioner and as such in exercise of powers conferred under Section 18(2) of the Uttar Pradeh Madhyamik

¶19

¶20

Shiksha Seva Chayan Board Adhiniyam, 1982, the respondent no.3, directed for appointment of the senior most lecturer i.e. the respondent no.4 as officiating Principal in the institution in question and also attested her signature.

¶21

Aggrieved with these three orders, namely, the order of the respondent no.3, dated 8.6.2018 and the order of the respondent no.3 dated 29.6.2018, and the order dated 17.7.2018, the petitioners, have filed the present writ petition.

¶22

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Sr. Advocate, submits that once the respondent no.4 has refused to accept the post of officiating Principal on 2.1.2009, followed by another letter written by her on 23.4.2010, and as such in view of the Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No.959 of 2006 (Sundershan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 15.9.2006, the respondent no.4, even though senior most lecturer; could not have been appointed as officiating Principal. The charge of officiating Principal was sought to be given by the petitioners to the respondent No.5, Smt. Urmila Singh, which should have been accepted by the respondent no.3.

¶23

Sri Prakash Padia,learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the entire case of the petitioners is based on manipulations and false allegations. The respondent no.5 was not even lecturer as on the date of occurrence of the substantive vacancy and, therefore, she was ineligible for the post of officiating Principal. He submits that the endorsement upon the letter dated 2.1.2009 was obtained under coercion by the Manager from the respondent no.4 and, therefore, on the very same day she rebutted it and wrote that if any offer is made to her to take charge as Principal she is ready to accept it. He drawn attention of this court to the letter dated 23.4.2010, which does not bear the signature of the respondent no.4. He submits that the petitioner has never refused to work as officiating Principal and as such her claim was lawfully accepted by the respondent no.3 for the post of officiating Principal being the senior most lecturer.

¶24

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.

¶25

It is undisputed that on occurrence of substantive vacancy on

¶26

¶27

30.6.2008, due to retirement of substantively appointed Principal Smt. Ram Payari Rai, the then senior most Principal, Smt. Geeta Singh, was appointed as officiating Principal on 1.7.2008. Pursuant to a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 4.1.2009, she was suspended by letter of the Manager dated 5.1.2009. Her suspension was approved by the respondent no.3 on 13.12.2009. Subsequently, either proceedings were dropped against her or the proceedings were withdrawn. Therefore, she continued as officiating Principal till her retirement on 30.6.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. There appears to be no reason for the respondent no.4 to make an endorsement on the letter of the Manager dated 2.1.2009, that due to personal works she is unable to accept the post of Officiating Principal inasmuch as on that day the aforesaid then Officiating Principal Smt. Geeta Singh was continuing. Much reliance has been placed by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Sr. Advocate, upon the letter dated 23.04.2010 (Annexure 4) to submit that the respondent no.4 has again declined to take charge of officiating Principal. The reliance so placed is wholly misplaced. Perusal of the letter dated 23.4.2010 shows that it does not bear signature of the respondent no.4. In fact the Manager has not only acted mala fidely but also mislead the authorities when he represented before the authorities with reference to the letter dated 23.4.2010 that the respondent no.4 has refused to accept the post of officiating Principal, whereas the said letter does not bear her signature rather it bears signature of two other lecturers, namely, Smt. Amita Asthana and Smt. Renu Bala Singh. The respondent no.3 was either mislead by Manager of the Institution or he arbitrarily appointed the respondent no.5 as officiating Principal. The respondent No.4 was continuously pursuing the matter with the higher authorities which resulted in the order dated 8.6.2018, passed by the respondent no.2, directing the respondent no.3 to examine the matter and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the respondent no.3 examined the matter and found that the respondent no.4, being undisputedly the senior most lecturer in the institution in question is entitled for appointment as officiating Principal. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.6.2018, followed by the impugned order dated 17.7.2018 were passed by the

¶28

¶29

respondent no.3, which do not suffer from any error of law. The petitioners have acted mala fidely and they mislead the authorities. Even before this court the petitioners made misleading averments in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the writ petition.

¶30

In the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 (Para 8) , Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the effect of suppression of facts and false representation and held in para 8 as under :

¶31

"8. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Exhibit B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial tantamounts to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Exhibit B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side than he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. ."

¶32

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order and to invoke the extra ordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby

¶33

dismissed .

¶34

Order Date :- 24.7.2018/vkg

Committee of Management Sri Agrasen Girls Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management Sri Agrasen Girls Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manindra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Priya Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Shri Pujari Munshi Lal Madhyamik Vidyalaly and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Kumar Babre and 58 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Narsingh Rai Vs Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi, and 3 Others

Upender Singh and 55 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others