R.R.K.Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE controversy in both the aforesaid writ petitions is with regard to the office of the head of the institution, namely Janta Inter College, Kharkhaunda, district Meerut (hereinafter referred to as College) and the Petitioner in the first petition is also Petitioner no. 3 in the second petition and common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, hence both the writ petitions can be disposed of conveniently together by a common judgment. Learned counsel for parties in both the petitions have agreed that the petition may be decided finally at this stage.
(2.) WRIT petition No. 28693 of 1993 was initially disposed of finally with certain directions by order dated 6 -7 -1993. However, Respondent no. 3 in that petition filed Special Appeal No. Nil of 1993 which was allowed on 18 -8 -1993 and the order dated 6 -7 -1993 as well as the order dated 9 -7 -1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools as a consequence thereof were set aside, and the case has been sent back for passing fresh orders after hearing parties. In this petition a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that Petitioner does not want to file rejoinder affidavit. The relief claimed in this writ petition is that Respondent no. 1. District Inspector of Schools, may be directed to decide the representations filed by the president of the committee of management which are Annexures 8, 9 and 13 to the writ petition after hearing parties in accordance with law at the earliest. The second relief sought in the writ petition is that Respondents may be directed not to interfere in the working of the Petitioner as ad -hoc principal after 1 -7 -1993 The representation, Annexure VIII, dated 28 -4 -1993 has been filed by Mahabir Prasad Tyagi, president of the committee of management of the College, wherein it has been stated that the principal of the College Shri Om Prakash Sharma shall retire on 30 -6 -1993 and it has been learnt that the Manager in collusion with Om Prakash Sharma wants to give charge of the office of the principal to Desh Raj Singh, Respondent no. 3 who is at the serial no. 5 in the seniority list, which is wholly illegal and the committee of management is also being kept in dark about this activity. Prayer has been made that Petitioner Pramod Kumar Jindal, lecturer in Physics is a senior most lecturer and he should be allowed to officiate as principal of the College and his legitimate rights may not be allowed to be violated. Annexure 9 is a representation of the same by the Petitioner and the contents and the prayer made are substantially the same as of Annexure 8. Annexure 13 dated 2 -7 -1993 is an application of Petitioner addressed to Respondent no. 1 inviting his attention towards a news item published in Hindi Daily "Daink Jagran" of 2 -7 -1993 alleging that Respondent no. 3 has been given charge of the office of principal on 30 -6 -1993. It has been further stated that when Petitioner reached the College at 7.00 A. M. the College was found locked and it was opened upto 10.00 A.M. It has been prayed that the presence of the Petitioner may be marked in the office of Respondent no. 1 and it has also been prayed that he being the senior most lecturer may be given charge of the office of the principal.
(3.) WRIT petition No. 29126 of 1993 has been filed by the committee of management of the College through president and Swaraj Singh Tyagi, Petitioner no. 2 treasurer of the committee of management of the College, and Pramod Kumar Jindal who is already Petitioner in the first petition. The relief sought in this writ petition is to quash the seniority list signed by the Respondent no. 4 manager of the college and submitted along with representation dated 5 -7 -1993. Annexure 12 to the writ petition. It has also been prayed that Respondents nos. 3 and 4 be restrained from interfering with the working of the Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid seniority list and for a direction to the other Respondents to ensure peaceful atmosphere and smooth functioning of the College. It has also been prayed that Respondent no. 1. Director of Education, and District Inspector of Schools may be restrained from taking any cognizance of the representation letter sent by the Respondent no. 4 Chandra Prakash Sharma.;