Dismissed

Rajeev Kumar v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024WRIA/12675/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition by a senior lecturer challenging an appointment of a junior, qualified lecturer and directed the college management to comply with the Educational Officer's orders within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed; Committee of Management directed to appoint Rajeev Kumar as Officiating Principal within two weeks.

Rajeev Kumar vs State of Up and 4 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:155657 Reserved on :03.09.2024 Delivered on :24.09.2024

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12675 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

with

¶6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39469 of 2014

¶7

Petitioner :- Nanhe Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Singh,B.P. Singh,D.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.B.Dubey,Hari Kesh Singh,Krishna Dutt Tiwari,Rajendra Kumar,S.R. Pandey,Siddharth Khare

¶8

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶9

1. These two writ petitions have been filed by rival candidates claiming to be appointed as Officiating Principal in an Institution known as K.M. Inter College, Islam Nagar, Budaun.

¶10

2. Writ-A No. 39469 of 2014 has been filed by one Nanhe Lal challenging the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by District Inspector of Schools requiring the Committee of Management to consider its earlier proposal and appoint Rajeev Kumar, fourth respondent, as the Officiating Principal and order dated 17.11.2017 by which the District Inspector of Schools has recalled its earlier order dated 26.08.2017 and 04.09.2017 sanctioning the pay scale of Principal to Nanhe Lal.

¶11

3. Writ-A No. 12675 of 2024 has been filed by Rajeev Kumar seeking direction upon respondent to permit him to function as Officiating/ad hoc Principal of the Institution and pay him regular salary and compliance of order dated 15.07.2014, being made by Committee of Management, passed by third respondent.

¶12

[2]

¶13

4. Both the matters were taken up and heard together and with the consent of the parties, the same are being decided together.

¶14

5. Before adverting to decide the issue in hand, a cursory glance of brief facts are necessary for better appreciation of the case.

¶15

6. There is an Institution known as K.M. Inter College, Islam Nagar, Budaun ( hereinafter referred as “Institution in question” ), which is a duly recognised Institution and governed by provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and is receiving grant in aid from State Government. Nanhe Lal was initially appointed in the Institution as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade being recommended by U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board ( hereinafter referred as “Board” ). Appointment letter was issued by Management on 22.10.2001, and he joined his duties on 23.10.2001. Nanhe Lal was promoted to the post of Lecturer in Civics by order issued by Joint Director of Education on 14.03.2012, followed by order of D.I.O.S. dated 21.03.2012 and necessary order was passed by Manager on 23.03.2012.

¶16

7. Post of Principal in the aforesaid Institution fell vacant on 30.06.2012 on account of retirement of one Gyan Chandra Sharma who was an Officiating Principal, appointed on 01.07.2011 and functioned till 30.06.2012. Nanhe Lal assumed the charge of Officiating Principal on 01.07.2012 as he was the only Lecturer in the Institution. Papers relating to his appointment were forwarded to D.I.O.S. who granted necessary approval and attested the signatures on 06.08.2012.

¶17

8. Rajeev Kumar, the fourth respondent in the first writ petition filed in the year 2014, and petitioner in the second writ petition, was initially appointed as Subject Expert in the year 2001 for imparting instructions of study in English at Jay Bharat Inter College, Muzaffar Nagar. On 04.10.2007, he was absorbed as Lecturer in English at Gandhi Inter College, Rampur. He was transferred to the Institution in question by

¶18

[3]

¶19

orders of Additional Director of Education (Secondary) dated 31.08.2012. He joined the Institution in question on 05.09.2012. He has qualification of M.A. in English and also possess the degree of B.Ed. He has been teaching intermediate classes from 2007 onwards.

¶20

9. Rajeev Kumar moved an representation before D.I.O.S. on 23.11.2013 on the ground that Nanhe Lal did not have required qualification to be appointed as Principal of intermediate college as he was made Lecturer on 23.03.2012 and necessary four years experience had not completed before he was given the charge of Officiating Principal on 01.07.2012. The D.I.O.S. after hearing both the rival candidates passed an order on 15.07.2014 finding that Nanhe Lal did not have the requisite qualification to be appointed as Officiating Principal and Rajeev Kumar fulfilled all the necessary criteria for being appointed as Officiating Principal.

¶21

10. Nanhe Lal challenged the order dated 15.07.2014 through Writ-A No. 39469 of 2014 wherein an interim order was granted on 01.08.2014. The interim order continued till 25.05.2016 and, thereafter, it was never extended. This Court on 04.10.2021 had observed that no one was appearing on behalf of Nanhe Lal and interim order was not extended post 25.05.2016 even though the matter was listed on numerous occasions, and Nanhe Lal taking undue advantage of the pendency of the petition and was continuing as Officiating Principal.

¶22

11. In Writ Petition No. 39469 of 2014, an amendment application was moved for amending the prayer clause which was allowed on 03.09.2024 and a challenge has been laid to order dated 17.11.2017 passed by D.I.O.S. recalling the benefit of pay scale granted to Nanhe Lal by earlier order dated 26.08.2017 and 04.09.2017.

¶23

12. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Rejeev Kumar in Writ Petition No. 12675 of 2024 and for the fourth respondent

¶24

[4]

¶25

in Writ Petition No. 39469 of 2014 submitted that vacancy arose on 30.06.2012 when Gyan Chandra Sharma retired as Officiating Principal of the Institution. Nanhe Lal did not have the requisite qualification as provided under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Nanhe Lal was promoted as Lecturer on 23.03.2012 and he did not have the teaching experience of four years when he was given the charge of 01.07.2012. According to him, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Balbir Kaur and another vs. U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board and others, (2008) 12 SCC 1 followed by decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Dr. Sushila vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, Special Appeal No. 34 of 2023 , decided on 03.03.2023, Nanhe Lal could not have been appointed as Officiating Principal and order passed by D.I.O.S. on 15.07.2014 requiring the Committee of Management to appoint Rajeev Kumar as Officiating Principal despite the fact that he was junior but he had the requisite qualification is correct.

¶26

13. Sri Sankalp Narain Singh, learned counsel appearing for Nanhe Lal, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 39469 of 2014, submitted that his client was the only Lecturer working in the Institution when the vacancy arose on 30.06.2012. The Management had rightly proceeded to appoint Nanhe Lal as Principal of the Institution. On the contrary, Rajeev Kumar was transferred in the Institution in the month of September, 2012 and being placed junior to Nanhe Lal could not claim to be appointed as Officiating Principal as it is senior most Lecturer who has to be given the job of Officiating Principal. He further submitted that his client has acquired the necessary qualification and, thus, entitled to continue as Officiating Principal of the Institution.

¶27

14. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶28

15. It is not in dispute that vacancy arose in the Institution on

¶29

[5]

¶30

30.06.2012 when Gyan Chandra Sharma retired as an Officiating Principal. It is also not in dispute that Nanhe Lal was promoted as Lecturer on 23.03.2012, while Rajeev Kumar was absorbed as a Lecturer in English on 04.10.2007. Further, Rajeev Kumar had joined the Institution subsequent to his transfer on 05.09.2012 and since then he has been continuously working. The matter came up for consideration before D.I.O.S. on the representation moved by Rajeev Kumar that Nanhe Lal did not have requisite qualification to be appointed as Principal of the Institution in question, as he did not have four years teaching experience. The D.I.O.S. on 15.07.2014 after hearing both the parties had recorded a clear finding that when the vacancy arose there was no Lecturer in the Institution except Nanhe Lal who was appointed as Officiating Principal, but upon the transfer of Rajeev Kumar who was placed at the bottom of cadre but had the necessary qualification of being appointed as Officiating Principal, thus, the appointment of Nanhe Lal could not be continued and directed the Management to reconsider the proposal and pass necessary orders.

¶31

16. In Balbir Kaur and another (supra) , the Apex Court had clearly held that requisite experience on the date of occurrence of vacancy has to been seen. In the instant case, Nanhe Lal did not have the requisite qualification and experience at the time when he was appointed as Officiating Principal though he was the only Lecturer in the Institution and charge was given to him.

¶32

17. Once Rajeev Kumar was transferred and had joined the Institution on 05.09.2014, though having been placed in the bottom of seniority, he had the requisite qualification and the necessary experience to be given the charge of Officiating Principal. The order passed by District Inspector of Schools on 15.07.2014 only reaffirms the statutory provision and law laid down by courts in respect of handing over charge of an Officiating Principal to a Lecturer of an Institution.

¶33

[6]

¶34

18. Moreover, the interim order which was granted in Writ Petition No. 39469 of 2014 was also not extended beyond 25.05.2016, and the Court on 04.10.2021 in the said writ petition had passed the following order:-

¶35

“None has appeared for the petitioner even in the revised call.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondents stated that although the interim order was not extended post 25 May 2016 even though the matter had been listed on numerous occasions thereafter, the petitioner taking undue advantage of the pendency of the writ petition is continuing to work as Officiating Principal.

¶37

Include in the additional cause list of 01 November 2021.”

¶38

19. From perusal of the above, it is clear that once the interim order was not extended meaning thereby that the order passed by D.I.O.S. on 15.07.2014 came into operation and Committee of Management was bound to take decision complying the order dated 15.07.2014.

¶39

20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing counsel for both the parties, I find that orders impugned dated 15.07.2014 and 17.11.2017 under challenge in Writ Petition No. 39469 of 2014 need no interference of this Court and the said writ petition stands dismissed.

¶40

21. Writ Petition No. 12675 of 2024 is being disposed of with a direction to Committee of Management of the Institution to immediately take decision and comply the order dated 15.07.2014, strictly in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of two weeks, from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶41

22. In case, the Committee does not proceed to pass any order and take necessary decision in the matter, the District Inspector of Schools, Budaun shall proceed against Committee of Management under the Act taking necessary action against them for not complying the order.

¶42

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 V.S.Singh

¶43

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar v. State of Up 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Meena vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dilip Tiwari vs State of Up and 5 Others

Mohd Afaque Khan vs State of Up and 3 Others

Brajesh Kumar Rajput vs State of Up and 3 Others

Jaivinder Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Kalyan Singh vs Anil Kumar and 2 Others