N. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.7.2003 passed by the opposite party No. 3 the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao/Authorised Controller, V.D.T. Inter College, Minya Ganj, Unnao as contained in Annexure-No. 1 to the writ petition and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to allow the opposite party No. 5 to take over the charge of the post of Principal of the said college.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the relevant facts of the case are that Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, the petitioner is the officiating Principal in the College. The opposite party No. 5 Shri Ajit Singh Parihar is duly selected Principal of the said college. The opposite party No. 5 was involved in a murder trial in a case in his private capacity. He was arrested by the police and was sent to jail. Later on, he was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. AFTER the conviction, the opposite party no. 5 preferred an appeal. The appeal has been admitted. The opposite party No. 5 has been granted bail. The execution of the sentence passed against the opposite party No. 5 has also been suspended during the pendency of the appeal by this Court. It was because of the suspension of the opposite party No. 5, the petitioner being senior most teacher was given charge of the post of Principal of the college as Acting Principal. AFTER release on bail by this Court, the opposite party No. 5 moved a representation before the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao for revoking his suspension. The District Basic Education Officer, Unnao revoked the suspension order on 19.7.2003. The writ petition was filed mainly on the ground that the conviction has not been suspended. Later on, the execution of the sentence has also been suspended on the day when this Court passed the interim order staying the impugned order revoking the suspension order. It is contended by the petitioner that the opposite party No. 5 being a convict cannot be permitted to hold the office of the Principal and the conviction of the opposite party No. 5 has not been set aside by this Court. The impugned order recalling the suspension order is illegal because it has been passed only on the ground that the opposite party No. 5 has been released on bail and since the petitioner is holding the post of Principal for the last two years the impugned order recalling the suspension order of the opposite party No. 5 should be quashed. In support of his contention, the leaned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jawahar Lal Arora v. Union of India and others, 1986 (2) AISLJ 185. On the strength of this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to show his locus standi to file the writ petition. In the facts of this case, the adverse remarks from the confidential remarks of a senior employee was expunged after four years and the petitioner's case was that expunction of remarks affects his chance of promotion. It was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that those petitioners have local standi to file the writ petition. I find that this decision is not relevant in the facts of this case. I am of the view that the petitioner is only on officiating Principal. He has no right to challenge the revocation of the suspension order of the opposite party No. 5. It is the competent authority who has discretion to continue the suspension order of the opposite party No. 5 or to revoke the suspension order. If, the suspension order has been revoked in accordance with the provisions under the rules applicable, the third party cannot have any right to challenge the suspension order.
(3.) THE petitioner has further claimed a relief by way of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to allow the opposite party No. 5 to take over the charge of the post of Principal of the said college. THE petitioner is merely an officiating Principal while the opposite party No. 5 is a duly selected Principal of the College and when his suspension has been revoked, he has better right to continue on the post than the petitioner. A person who is officiating on the post has no right to come to this Court by filing the writ petition. Therefore, in view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.;