Decided on October 08,2012



- (1.) Petitioner has filed this contempt petition against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orderdated 29.12.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1787 of 2010 (M/S).
(2.) Petitioner was working as Vice-Principal in Campus School, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as Campus School). Vide resolution-dated 22.10.2008, the Committee of Management regularized the services of the petitioner as Principal. Thereafter, on 03.11.2008 the Secretary, Management Committee, Campus School passed order regarding her promotion. In the said order, it was mentioned that the petitioner is entitled to get all the perks as admissible to the Principal, Campus School. On 12.04.2010, the Secretary of Management Committee of the Campus School issued an order on behalf of the Patron of Campus School, canceling the orders dated 22.10.2008 and 03.11.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2010 before the Educational Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar. The said appeal was dismissed on 11.10.2010. Against the order dated 11.10.2010 and order dated 12.04.2010, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1787 of 2010 (M/S) before this Court. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 29.12.2011 and the orders dated 12.04.2010 and 11.10.2010 were quashed. Operative portion of the order-dated 29.12.2011 is being reproduced below: "34. Having considered the rival contention of the learned counsel for both the parties as well as for the reasons and discussion above, I am of the view that the show cause notices having not been issued by the competent authority, i. e. committee of management of campus school including the President, is not tenable in the eye of law. The competent authority to take any action or to issue a show cause notice in the matter against the petitioner was the committee of management including the President, though with formal approval of the Patron, but the show cause notices having been issued by the Patron and not by the committee of Management including the President/ Chairman and the impugned orders having been passed by the Patron and not by the committee of management are against the provisions contained in the Bye-Laws of the committee of Management. That being so, the impugned orders passed by the Patron on 12-4-2010 (Annexure Nos. 18 and 19 to the writ petition) are liable to be quashed. Consequently, the order dated 11-10-2010 passed by the learned Tribunal has to be set aside. The writ petition deserves to be allowed outright. 35. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No order as to costs. "
(3.) The S. L. P. filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order-dated 29.12.2011 was also dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 26.07.2012 withdrew the order dated 12.04.2010. Infact, there was no need to withdraw that order, as the said order was already set aside by this Court on 29.12.2011. Thereafter, on 30.08.2012 another order was passed by the respondent no. 2, regarding payment of salary to the petitioner till that day, as Principal of the Campus School. The sum of Rs 97,372/- was paid to the petitioner.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.