R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 18 -6 -1993 whereby the Distt. Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar has passed an order under Second Proviso to Section 5 of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for single operation of the account of Sanatan Dharm Inter College, Meerapur district Muzaffarnagar, (hereinafter, referred to as the College), to be operated by Lekhadhikari, alone. Sri Raj Kumar Rawat, who is Principal of the college, has moved an application for impleadment as respondent No. 4 to the writ petition, and has requested for opportunity of hearing in opposition to the writ petition filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has opposed the application for impleadment of Sri Rawat on the ground that Principal of the college has no locus standi in the matter relating to the order of single operation passed under proviso to Section 5 of the Act. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on Smt. Surjeet Kaur v. District Inspector of Schools : 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1087 wherein learned Single Judge of this Court held that the Principal of a college has no right to challenge the show -cause notice issued to the Manager of the college under Section 5 of the Act. In the instant case the order for single operation of the college account has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools only on the ground of default on the part of the management in payment of salary to intervener Sri Raj Kumar Rawat. The Principal has not challenged the order passed under Section 5 of the Act. He is only seeking permission to intervene and defend the order of the District Inspector of Schools, on the ground that if the impugned order is set -aside he will be deprived of his salary. It is no doubt true that in case the impugned order is set -aside there may be problems again for the petitioners to get salary regularly from the management of the college. Sri Rawat is interested in maintaining the impugned order. As such he is entitled to be impleaded and be heard as one of the respondents. The application for impleadment of Sri Raj Kumar Rawat is accordingly allowed and objections of learned counsel for the petitioners, in this connection, are over -ruled. Sri Raj Kumar Rawat is impleaded as respondent No. 4 to the writ petition and the counter -affidavit, filed by him, is taken on records.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order on three grounds, viz. (i) Petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard before the order was passed; (ii) There was no default on the part of the petitioners in payment of Salary to Sri Raj Kumar Rawat; and (iii) The petitioners are ready to give an undertaking for payment of salary to Sri Rawat regularly, including the arrears and in view of the undertaking the impugned order should not be permitted to continue. A Division Bench of this Court in Society Ganesh Babu Shiksha Prasar Samiti v. Assistant Registrar,, 1993 (21) ALR 8 (Sum) :, 1987 UPLBEC 60 has laid down that opportunity of being heard has to be given to the Manager of the college before passing any order of single operation under Section 5 of the Act. In the instant case, there are no averments in the writ petition to the effect that opportunity of being heard was not given to the petitioners by the District Inspector of Schools before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, invited the attention of the Court to ground No. 5, which is reproduced below: - Because no opportunity was ever afforded to the petitioners before issuance of the impugned order. The impugned order is directly hit by principle of natural justice.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the petitioners have taken grounds, but there are no averments in its support in the whole of the writ petition. Grounds do not contain the statement of facts which are supported by affidavits. Grounds are only points on the basis of which the impugned order is challenged. The question as to whether the petitioners were given opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order, is essentially question of facts which has to be verified on the basis of personal knowledge of the petitioners. But this has not been done in this case. In the absence of any averments in its support the first submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has got to be rejected.;