A.P.Singh - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by one Prayag Datt Misra, a lecturer of Shri Dilip Singh Inter College, Bakerganj Goraju, district Allahabad, against an order dated 26-6-1993 passed by the Manager of the College as will as against another order dated 30-6-1993 passed by the same person. By order dated 26-6-93, which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the Manager has communicated to the petitioner the resolution of the managing committee of the said College whereby the petitioner has been subjected to the punishment of (i) stoppage of three increments permanently (ii) adverse entry in the character roll and (iii) disqualification from holding the post of Principal in the event of the post falling vacant on account of leave vacancy or in the situation where the appointment is required to be made on ad-hoc basis. The order dated 30-6-93 is a letter addressed by the Manager of the said institution to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad (herein-after called the 'Inspector') informing him about the decision taken by the managing committee of the College in its meeting dated 25-6-93 for appointment of one Sri Ram Abhilash Singh, respondent no. 4 as ad-hoc Principal of the College and further informing him that Ram Khilawan Singh has taken over charge of the post of Principal m 30-5-93 and requesting for counter specimen signature as Principal of the College.
(2.) IN brief, the dispute in this writ petition relates to the appointment of Principal of the College. On the one hand, the petitioner claims the right to be appointed on this post by virtue of being the senior-most teacher whereas respondent no. 4 claims a right to continue on the post on the basis of the decision of the managing committee dated 25-6-93 approving his appointment on the basis of the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner referred to above. Petitioner's contention in support of the writ petition was (i) that the impugned orders were passed malafidely by the Manager/managing committee for the purpose of depriving the petitioner from becoming Principal of the College on account of his being senior most lecturer and the order, under challenge was so timed that it had to coincide with the occurrence of vacancy on the post of Principal on 30-6-93 when the erstwhile Principal Ram Khilawan Singh was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation; (ii) the order of punishment dated 26-6-93 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) has been passed in complete disregard of the provisions of Section 16-G of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and Regulation 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Regulations occurring in Chapter III framed under the said Act. It was argued by Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the punishments awarded to the petitioner by the impugned qrder dated 26-6-93 cause diminution in the emoluments of the petitioner, therefore, the same is covered by clause (3) of Section 16-G of U.P. Intermediate Education Act as well as by Regulations 31 (d) read with Reg. 32 (3) of the Regulations and since no prior approval from the Inspector had been obtained by the management of the College for inflicting the punishments on the petitioner, the order dated 26-6-93 is void ab initio and has do application as against the petitioner.
(3.) IT was further argued that since no enquiry as contemplated by the provisions of the Regulations specially Regulations 36 and 37, was held by the committee of management/Manager of the College before awarding the aforementioned punishments on the petitioner, as such the orders are void ab initio IT was also argued that no compliance of Regulation 37 was, whatsover, made in as much as no opportunity of bearing, as contemplated by the aforesaid Regulation, was ever given to the petitioner by the respondents before inflicting the punishments. IT was also argued that the punishment disqualifying the petitioner from holding the post of principal is not a punishment warranted under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, as such, the managing committee or the Manager has no power under law at all to award such punishment on the petitioner and the said punishment having been awarded only to clear the way for appointment of respondent no. 4 as Principal of the College by sidelining the petitioner on wholly wrong pretext is, therefore, bound to be ignored for being void ab initio. IT was further argued that petitioner has a vested right of being appointed Principal of the College under Section 18 (4), as substituted by U. P. Ordinance no. 21 of 1992 such was subsequently replaced by U. P. Act no. 24 of 1992, being senior most lecturer of the College as under the said provision the management has no option whatsoever but to appoint the petition as ad- hoc Principal of the College as the seniority alone was the criterion for appointment of the Principal on ad-hoc basis. On the other hand, Dr. R. S. Dwivedi, who appeared on behalf of the respondents, has taken a preliminary objection and has prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed without (entering into the merits of the case inasmuch as the petitioner is guilty of concealing material facts from the Court by not mentioning the facts of holding of enquiry against him by the Enquiry Committee and also of affording of opportunity of hearing to him and also for making a false averment in that regard in the writ petition to the effect that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted.;