- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. This is an appeal from an interim order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Agarwala on the 10th April, 2006.
(2.) HIS Lordship has entertained the writ petition of the appellant, which is a Committee of Management, challenging the decision of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board refusing to approve of the order of dismissal which was passed by the appellant as against the erstwhile Principal Km. Sarojini Barsoul (On our decision, it would not be right to describe her as on date as 'erstwhile' ). However, his Lordship has not been pleased to stay the operation of disapproval which is dated 18-1- 2006. It has been further ordered that in case the Principal is not allowed to join, the Committee of Management will pay her salary. The Principal is to retire with the expiry of the 30th June, 2006. For about four years past, she has not discharged her duties as Principal of the College. This has happened although the Board never approved of the dismissal order passed by the Committee of Management. Once earlier the earlier order of disapproval was challenged before the Court by the Committee of Management by way of an earlier writ and orders were passed both by an Hon'ble Single Judge and by the Division Bench. At that time, the first Court ordered on the 20th of November, 2001 that the Principal will not be insisted to perform her duties".
(3.) SHRISHAILENDRA,learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this meant that the Principal will not have the option of insisting on being allowed to perform her duties. The words certainly do not say so, but he submits that the other portion of the same order mentions that it is not appropriate to allow a Principal, under a charge of financial embezzlement, to be allowed to perform he duties. Be that as it may, when the matter went upto the Court of appeal on the earlier occasion, the Division Bench ordered that the seniormost Lecturer of the Institution would perform the day to day Management but the erstwhile Principal "will be her remuneration". Parties accepted that these words must meant "will be paid her remuneration". However, there is no agreement amongst the parties as to who would pay the remuneration. The order also does not specify it. It so happens that the State Government has been paying the salary of the non-working private respondent Principal from 4-1-2002, when the order of the Court of appeal was passed until in present period.;