R. E. Gulati, J.- - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(2.) THE brief facts are these. THE applicant was appointed as a teacher in L. T. grade in August, 1975 in Sushila Sharma Vigyan Mandir, Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Shanti Nagar, Godhapur Jaspurapur. district Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as the college). One Satish Chandra Sharma was the Principal of the college. In the year 1985 pending some enquiry against him he was suspended from service, when the applicant was made as officiating Principal. THEreafter, a dispute arose between the applicant and another teacher of the college, namely, Ram Govlnd Avasthi as to their seniority inter as and who was entitled to function as officiating Principal. By an order, dated 14-3-1986, the then Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad, held that the other teacher was senior to the applicant. Consequently, by an order dated 28-4-1986, the District Inspector of Schools directed the applicant to hand over the charge of the office of Principal to Ram Govind Avasthi. Being aggrieved, the applicant moved this Court by filing a writ petition No. 7003 of 1986. Pending admission of the writ petition this Court granted an ad interim order dated 17-6-1986 which was to the following effect : "List alongwith writ petition at the time of admission. Meanwhile, the opposite parties shall not interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Principal of Sushila Sharma Vigyan Mandir, Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Shanti Nagar, Ganderapur, iaspurapur, district Farrukhabad". Earlier, the applicant filed another Contempt Petition No. 605 of 1989 against District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad, Sri Jai Pal Singh Verma, asserting, inter alia, that he had knowingly violated the order passed in the writ petition. That contempt petition is still pending adjudication. On 14-8-1989 Sri Jai Pal Singh Verma was transferred and in his place,,Sri Atma Ram Srivastava, the sole respondent in this Contempt Application was appointed as District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad. The grievance is that the present Inspector of Schools is also refusing to recognise the applicant as officiating Principal of the College despite the order of this Court dated 17th June, 1986, and other material about the functioning of the applicant as Principal of the College having been brought to his notice. Further, the respondent is not attesting the signatures of the applicant which amounts to interfering in the functioning of the applicant as the Principal of the College. Thus it is asserted that the respondent is liable to be punished for contempt of this Court having flouted the order passed in the writ petition. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find there are no merits in this petition.
(3.) IT is unfortunate that the applicant suppressed certain vital facts from this Court while moving the present application for contempt. From the defence filed by the respondent and from the rejoinder affidavit filed thereto, it is not in dispute that Satish Chandra Sharma at whose place the applicant was made as officiating Principal, was reinstated as permanent Principal of the College and he functioned as such between 20th February 1988 to 30th June, 1989 and then retired on attaining the age of superannuation. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant for the first time has some out with a case that on the retirement of Satish Chandra Sharma, the outgoing Principal, on 1st of July 1989 handed over the charge to him of the office of the Principal, and since then be is acting as officiating Principal. This position is not accepted in the defence filed by the respondent. However, as I am not concerned with the question about the propriety or otherwise of the applicant's functioning as Officiating Principal, in these peoceedings, it is not necessary for me to dwel on this matter. In the defence filed, it is emphatically denied that the respondent has violated the order passed in the writ petition. However, at the same time, he has also tendered an unconditional apology, if it is found that there was any violation on bis part of the order passed by this Court.;