- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-7-1999, dismissing the writ petition No. 7801 of 1989 of the Petitioner- Appellant, the present appeal under the Rules of the Court has been preferred.
(2.) IN brief, the case of the Petitioner-Appellant is that she was appointed as Teacher (TGT Grade) on 1-7- 1965, and in PGT Grade i. e. Lecturer's grade on 11-8-1980, in Kanya Vedic INter College, Ghaziabad (in short 'college ). The erstwhile Principal Smt. Punya Kirti Sharma on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 30-6-1988 resulting in a substantive vacancy on the post of Principal in the College. It appears that some of the next senior most teachers namely Smt. Gayatri Bhatnagar, Urmila Goel and Swam Lata Jain, declined to officiate as Principal. By order dated 29-6-1988, the Manager of the College directed the Petitioner-Appellant to take charge of the office of officiating Principal with effect from 1-7-1988. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner-Appellant took over charge of the office of officiating Principal on 1-7- 1988. The Manager vide letter dated 26-7-1988 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) informed the Regional INspector of Girls Schools, Meerut (in short 'rigs') about the retirement of erstwhile Principal on 30-6- 1988 and that the charge has been taken over by the Petitioner-Appellant. This letter of the Manager did not mention that the charge handed over to the Petitioner-Appellant, was as officiating Principal or otherwise but only mentions about the factum of handing over charge to the Petitioner-Appellant. Further the Petitioner- Appellant, acting as Principal of the College, vide letter dated 6-8-1988, herself, informed the Manager, Central Bank of INdia, Ghaziabad that now the College account shall be operated by her in place of the erstwhile Principal. Subsequently, RIGS directed the management vide order dated 29-3-1989 to permit senior most teacher to function as officiating Principal of the College and also conveyed her disapproval of Petitioner- Appellant's functioning as Principal. It is this letter dated 29- 3- 1989, whereagainst the Petitioner-Appellant preferred the aforesaid writ petition seeking following reliefs: 1. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter/order dated 29-3-1989 (Annexure-IV ). 2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to let the petitioner to continue to function as principal so long as a regular appointment is not made by the Secondary Education Services Commission. A writ, order of direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the Case. Award heavy costs of the petition to the petitioner. 3. In the meanwhile, it appears that RIGS passed two more orders dated 17th April 1989 and 28th April 1989 directing the Manager to promote respondent No. 3, the senior most teacher, as officiating principal and to send salary bills under her signatures. 4. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed following interim order dated 12-5-1989: "meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 29th March 1989 of respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be continued as Acting Principal of the College and paid her salary till a regular selected candidate by the Commission becomes available for appointment. "
(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, Petitioner-Appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C. P. C. seeking addition of certain grounds and one prayer as l (a) in the writ petition, whereby she sought writ of certiorari quashing RIGS's orders dated 17-4-1989 and 28- 4-1989. This Court on 3rd may 1994 passed an order on the said application directing it to be listed with record but, thereafter, it appears that the Petitioner-Appellant did riot press this application, since no order allowing the aforesaid application has ever been passed. Hence, the said prayer has never been made part and parcel of the writ petition. Besides, it appears that vacancy on the post of officiating Principal of the College was also requisitioned to the Commission pursuant whereto vide order dated 15th April 1997, Commission selected and recommended Dr. Smt. Taruna Tyagi for appointment as Principal of the College. Consequently, the District Inspector of Schools issued letter dated 23rd January 1999 directing the management of the College to appoint Dr. Smt. Taruna Tyagi as Principal of the College in place of the Petitioner-Appellant, who thence filed an impleadment application No. 15089 of 1999 seeking impleadment of Dr. Smt. Taruna Tyagi as Respondent No. 4. The facts stated in the said application shows that on 25th January, 1999, appointment letter was issued appointing Dr. Smt. Taruna Tyagi as Principal of the College pursuant whereto she joined on 27th January 1999 and her signature for operation of bank accounts was also attested on 28th January 1999. It appears from the record that neither the selection of Respondent No. 4 nor her appointment letter was ever challenged either by seeking amendment in the said writ petition or by filing a fresh writ petition. It is not disputed between the parties that since 1999, Dr. Smt. Taruna Tyagi, Respondent No. 4 is continuously working as regularly appointed Principal of the College. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 does not dispute appointment of the Petitioner- Appellant as teacher in the College in L. T. Grade on 1-7-1965 and promotion in Lecturer Grade on 11-8- 1980 but it is averred that in the seniority list of the teachers of the College, she was at SI. No. 17. A copy of the seniority list has been placed on record as Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit filed in writ petition which shows that sixteen teachers, namely, Smt. Gayatri Bhatnagar, Urmila Goel, Swarnlata Jain, Usha Mehta, Shashi Bala, Sawitri Bhatia, Mithlesh Sharma, Anjali Das Gupta, Shanta Malhotra, Saroj Bhaseen, Pramila Singhal, Sudha Bala Jain, Ramesh Dhupar, Saroj Gupta, Uma Goel and Shashi Agarwal were senior to the Petitioner-Appellant who were working on the post of lecturer in the College. Further, it is said that neither the committee of management ever passed any resolution making ad hoc or officiating appointment of the Petitioner-Appellant on the post of Principal nor any such resolution was received by the respondent No. 1. No approval was granted by respondent No. 1 either to the appointment of the Petitioner-Appellant or to her functioning as officiating Principal of the College. The post of Principal was to be filled in as per the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (in short 'the Act') and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder and at no point of time, the Petitioner-Appellant was appointed as officiating Principal in accordance with the provisions thereof. The Union of non-teaching staff of the College made a representation dated 22-8-1988 making complaint against the Petitioner-Appellant regarding financial irregularities and misuse of the fluids by the Manager of the College in collusion with the Petitioner-Appellant who was a much junior lecturer. Similar complaints were also sent by others, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure CA-2, 3 and 4 to the counter-affidavit. The District Inspector of Schools (in short DIOS) sought an explanation on the aforesaid complaints from the College vide his letter dated 24-9-1988. It appears that on receiving complaints, the RIGS Meerut also wrote a letter dated 1-10-1988 (Annexure CA-7 to the Counter Affidavit) requiring the Manager of the College to send seniority list of teachers of the College, and, also not to allow the Petitioner- Appellant to function as Principal of the College. The Manager having failed to respond, a reminder also sent on 15-2-1989 (Annexure CA-8 to the counter-affidavit ). Thereafter steps were taken by the authorities to ensure that the senior most teacher of the College should function as officiating Principal and an order of this effect was issued whereagainst the Petitioner- Appellant filed writ petition and obtained interim order.;