A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) The petitioner claiming himself to be senior to respondent no. 5 has challenged the impugned order dated 30.5.2005, whereby the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as head master of the institution on ad hoc basis has been rejected, by holding that the petitioner's representation is not worth consideration, as he is even otherwise junior to the respondent no. 5 and is not working in the institution, for which reliance has been placed by the respondent the District Inspector of Schools on the inspection report dated 13.8.2003.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Y.K. Saxena has raised three principle objections for declaring the order to be unsustainable in the eyes of law, namely, that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of a report about which the petitioner was never put to notice and further, the assumptions drawn against the petitioner about his non functioning in the institution are non existent, secondly, that the dispute of seniority has been decided without taking note of the provisions of law, and thirdly, there was no justification in law to have accepted the claim of respondent no. 5.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 and Sri P.C. Mishra has been heard on behalf of the said respondent. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner to demonstrate that he is continuously functioning in the institution. Learned Standing Counsel has also advanced his argument in support of the impugned order and contends that the order does not deserve interference.;