- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorai quashing the order dated 20-9-2000 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah/auraiya rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner for her recognition as the Head Mistress of the School known as Shri Shyam Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Anant Ram Sonasi, Auraiya (Etawah), for short 'the institution'. Prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in petitioner's functioning as the Head Mistress of the said institution, has also been made.
(2.) RELEVANT facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the institution was initially recognized as Junior High School. It also had the financial recognition. It was in the year 1992 that the institution was upgraded as High School and was permitted to open 9th and 10th classes but without any financial recognition. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as Head Mistress of the said institution. The signatures of the petitioner are also alleged to have been attested by the District Inspector of Schools. She was, therefore, legally entitled to act as the Head Mistress of the institution and the respondents had no right to interfere in her functioning as such. There has been long drawn litigation between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 with regard to appointment and acting as Head of the institution. Earlier, Writ Petition No. 30281 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner in this regard. The said writ petition was disposed of finally by this Court by its judgment and order dated 25-7-2000, which is quoted below : "heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order is in the nature of communication to the petitioner to the effect that examination fee of Class IX had already been deposited by the recognized Head of the institution. The communication impliedly conveys that recognised Head of the institution is some one else. In the circumstances, therefore, it would be just and proper that the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner files a representation, the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in respect of the question as to who is the recognized Head of the institution. The decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months after notice to the parties concerned. " Petitioner, after the aforesaid order was passed, filed a representation before the District Inspector of Schools for redressal of her grievances. The District Inspector of Schools, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties rejected the representation of the petitioner by his judgment and order dated 20-9-2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner was appointed as Head Mistress of the institution by the Committee of Management after following the procedure prescribed for the same, she was, therefore, entitled to continue to function as Principal of the College. The respondents had no right to interfere in her functioning as the Head Mistress and that the representation filed by the petitioner was illegally rejected by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 20-9-2002. The said order was, therefore, liable to be quashed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. The fact that initially the institution in question when it was Junior High School, was recognized with financial help is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the respondent No. 4 was the Head Master of the institution before the same was upgraded to High School. The respondent No. 4 claimed that he being the Head Master of the Junior High School, was entitled to act as the Head Master of the institution even after the same was upgraded. Respondent No. 4 has also filed Writ Petition No. 30124 of 1998, in which interim order was granted in his favour on the strength of which, he got his signature from the District Inspector of Schools attested and has been acting as the Head Master of the institution. The District Inspector of Schools took into consideration the judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 31294 filed by the petitioner virtually for the same relief, which is being prayed for in the present petition. It has been stated that the said writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by judgment and order dated 24-9-1996. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioner also filed Special Appeal No. 784 of 1996, which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 17-10-1996. Orders dismissing writ petition and special appeal have become final and operate res judicata between the parties. The said facts have been noted in the second paragraph on page 28/29 of the writ petition. It has also been stated on page 29 of the writ petition that the signatures of the petitioner were attested on 6-6-1997 but the operation of the said attestation was stayed by the High Court, therefore, petitioner was legally not entitled to function as the Head Mistress. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner failed to show from the material on the record that the petitioner was appointed as the Head Mistress of the institution after following the procedure prescribed under the law. Further, he has failed to explain the conduct of the petitioner in deliberately suppressing and concealing the material facts regarding filing of the writ petition and special appeal, referred to above, and rejection thereof by this Court. It is well-settled in law that concealment of material facts amounts to criminal contempt. The conduct of the petitioner to suppress the material facts is deprecated and she is warned not to commit such mistake again. It may also be noted that in the writ petition, facts have not been stated in chronological order, apparently with a view to mislead this Court and to obtain favourable orders, therefore, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.;