Mam Chandra Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been moved by Smt. Daya Gupta seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 9th July, 1993, passed by the Authorised Controller of Hindu Kanya Inter College, Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar, appointing Smt. Shashi Bala Sabbharwal, respondent No. 4, as ad hoc Principal of the said institution and also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as ad hoc Principal thereof. Counter and rejoinder affidavits were exchanged and with the concurrence of the parties, the writ petition has been finally heard at the admission stage.
(2.) HINDU Kanya Inter College at Shamli in district Muzaffarnagar is a recognised institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. At present, the committee of management thereof has been superseded and the institution is being managed by an authorised controller, respondent No. 3. Smt. Dya Gupta, the petitioner, and Smt. Shashi Bala Sabbharwal, respondent No. 4, were working as lecturers in the said institution and one Smt. Sushila Mathur was working as its Principal. Smt. Sushila Mathur retired on 30th June, 1993. Smt. Shashi Bala Sabbharwal, respondent No. 4, was the senior most lecturer followed by the petitioner Smt. Daya Gupta, who stood at serial No. 2 in the seniority of the lecturers. The Authorised Controller passed an order dated 30th June, 1993, appointing Smt. Daya Gupta, the petitioner, as the ad -hoc Principal of the institution, as, due to various facts mentioned in the said order (Annexure '10' to the writ petition), he found the respondent No. 4 to be unsuitable for the post. Later, Smt. Shashi Bala Sabbharwal made a representation dated 5th July, 1993, to the Authorised Controller and on a consideration thereof, the Authorised Controller passed another order dated 9th July, 1993, and appointed the respondent No. 4 as the ad -hoc Principal. It is this subsequent order which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner, in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, has categorically accepted that the respondent No. 4 was senior to the petitioner. Ad -hoc appointments are governed by Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, and clause 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. The said Clause 4 is quoted below:
(3.) AD -hoc appointment by promotion. (1) Every vacancy in the post of the Head of an institution may be filled by promotion: (a) In the case of an Intermediate College, by the senior most teacher of the institution in the lecturer's grade; (b) In the case of a High School raised to the level of an Intermediate College by the Head Master of such High School; (c) In the case of a Junior High School raised to the level of a High School, by the Head Master of such Junior High School; (2) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the lecturer's grade may be filled by promotion by the senior -most teacher of the institution in the trained Graduate (L.T.) Grade. (3) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained Graduate (L.T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior -most teacher of the institution in the trained Under -graduate (C.T.) grade. (4) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained Under -graduate (C.T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior -most teacher of the institution in the J.T.C. grade or B.T.C. grade. Explanation. - - For the purposes of clauses (1) to (4) of this paragraph, the expression "senior -most teacher" means the teacher having longest continuous service in the Lecturer's grade or the trained graduate (L.T.) grade, or trained Under Graduate (C.T.) grade or J.T.C. or B.T.C. grade as the case may be. Clause 7 of the said order deals with disputes connected with promotion and direct recruitments and provides that every dispute connected with the promotion or direct recruitment under this order shall be referred to the director and his decision shall be final. 4. The petitioner's case is that there were various allegations against respondent No. 4 and she had committed several acts of irregularities and indiscipline and, therefore, she was disqualified for being appointed as the Principal of the college and in this manner, the Petitioner was the senior most lecturer on 30th June, 1993, when the post of Principal fell vacant and the petitioner was rightly appointed to the said post. According to her, the Authorised Controller acted with material irregularity in reviewing the order and under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, The U.P. Secondary Education (Services Commission and Selection Boards) Act, 1982 and the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, the Authorised Controller had no such power and the order passed on 9th July, 1993, is unsustainable. It is alleged that in passing the impugned order dated 9th July, 1993, the petitioner was given no opportunity of hearing and for this reason also, the said order is bad in law. It is also contended that there was no material offered to the Authorised Controller which justified the review and recalling of the order dated 30th June, 1993, by ignoring the seriousness of the charges against the respondent No. 4. It is also alleged that the petitioner has already taken over charge of the post of Principal with effect from 30th June, 1993, and is working as such. According to her, on the basis of the order dated 9th July, 1993, the respondents are trying to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as Principal. An application for interim relief was made and by order dated 15th July, 1993, it was ordered that the status quo as it existed on 15th July, 1993 shall be maintained with regard to the office of the Principal.;