Rakesh Tiwari, J.@mdashHeard Sri Narendra Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1. 3 and 4, Sri Neeraj Tiwari for respondent No. 2. and Sri V.K. Goyal for respondent No. 6.
2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this matter is decided finally at the admission stage.
3. This petition has been filed against the order of suspension dated 18.8.08 passed by respondent No. 5 appended to annexure-1 to the writ petition. On 5.9.08 a mention was made on behalf of Sri Neeraj Tiwari that notice of the petition has not been given him. Sri V.K. Goyal submits that petitioner has also filed writ petition No. 3437.2/08 in which lie has claimed substantial]) the same relief.
4. The earlier writ petition No. 34372/08 was filed for issuance of a writ in prayer No. 2 as has been claimed in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of officiating principal of the institution in question, on which post the petitioner is functioning since June 2000 till June 2009 when the petitioner is due for retirement and only 11 months are now left for his retirement.
5. Sri Narendra Mohan denies this hence both petitioners have been listed together.
6. In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents No. 5 and 6 not to interfere in the affairs/peaceful functioning of ire petitioner as Principal of the institution in question.
7. It appears that U.P. Secondary Selection Board. Allahabad has made selection for the post of of Principal of the institution during the period the petitioner was working as ad-hoc Principal in the institution. Sri Parmeshwari Dayal was placed at serial No. 1 and Vivek Mudgil in the select list. The decision of the Court in the writ petition challenging the selection was decided against the petitioner in the writ petition. Special Appeal No. 961 of 2002 was tiled by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid decision. This writ petition was heard along with a bunch of other petitions wherein selection by the U.P. Secondary Selection Board, Allahabad on the post of principal by direct recruitment was challenged. In the Special Appeal the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside. Against the judgment in Special appeal a large number of candidates filed Special Leave Appeal before the Supreme Court which was allowed. As a result the order passed in the writ petition revived. As a consequence Sri Parmeshwari Dayal who was at serial No. 1 and Vivek Mudgil at serial No. 2 select in the list were to be considered for appointment on the post of Principal in the institution.
8. However during the pendency of the aforesaid litigation up to the Apex Court Sri Parmeshwari Dayal retired on reaching the age of superannuation hence only Vivek Mudgil remained in the list.
9. It appears from Annexure-8 that Sri Vivek Mudgil was allowed to join and his signature was also attested. It also appears that the petitioner who was working as ad-hoc Principal till then was not permitting him to work as principal on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as Principal. Sri Narendra Mohan has placed reliance upon Annexures No. 6, 7 and 9 of the writ petition to establish that Vivek Mudgil was not qualified to be appointed as Principal.
10. It further appears that by letter dated 21.8.08 appended as Annexure-9 to this writ petition Deputy Secretary of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Sewa Chayan Board. Allahabad informed District Inspector of Schools. Jhansi that the question regarding eligibility of Vivek. Mudgil is under consideration and as such status-quo may be maintained.
11. Sri Narendra Mohan has submitted that the suspension order has been passed against the petitioner without following the procedure of law as there is neither any resolution of the Committee of Management nor Manager has restrained him for working as ad-hoc principal. He also raised questions regarding life expectancy of the panel list and submits that in view of Annexures 6 to 9 Vivek Mudgil is not eligible for the post of principal.
11. Sri V.K. Goyal submitted that period of suspension is to continue for at least 60 days according to the provision of Section 16G(vii) of U.P. Intermediate Education Manual Act 1973 during which grant of approval 10 suspension can be considered by the District Inspector of School. He submits that as period of 60 days is not over the writ petition is pre-mature in the light of judgment rendered in Govind Swaroop Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1981 UPLBEC 17. In that case the court considered the question of suspension being challenged within 60 days u/s 16G(vii) of the Act and held that the writ petition is not maintainable. In the instant case also the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of suspension order dated 18.8.08. Admittedly 60 days period has not expired during which the authority has to take a decision of either grant of approval or of not granting approval to the suspension. If it comes to the conclusion that suspension by the Manager who was exercising the power deligated to him by the Committee of Management is illegal he may not accord approval to the order of suspension. On the other hand if he finds suspension to be legal he can approved the order of suspension.
13. Further more Sri Narendra Mohan had staled that the prayers in the two writ petitions are not similar to the prayer for the reason substantially the same relief has been prayed for regarding m the earlier writ petition No. 34372/08. This does not appear to be correct. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for mandamus commanding respondents No. 5 and 6 not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Principal of the institution. From Anexure-8 appended to the writ petition it is apparent that respondent No. 6 Vivek Mudgil the candidate selected by the commission has already joined the post and his signatures have been sent for attestation hence the petitioner has no case to function as ad-hoc Principal of the institution. The commission has already directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Therefore no further interim order is required to pass by this Court.
14. In view of the Division Bench Case (Supra) the writ petitions are pre-mature at this stage, therefore dismissed at the admission stage.
No order as to costs.
