M. Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.8.96, Annexure-2 to the petition and for a mandamus directing respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the order dated 14.8.96.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts of the case are that the principal of Gurukul Sarvodaya Inter College, Panchli Khurd, district Meerut retired on 30.6.96. For considering appointment of an officiating Principal, a meeting of the Committee of Management was held on 3.6.96 and the decision was taken for appointment of Vijaya Dhar Dangwal as officiating Principal vide Annexure-1 to the petition. It is alleged in para 7 of the petition that the Committee of Management in this meeting decided not to appoint respondent No. 4 Prithivi Raj Garg as ad hoc Principal as according to the petitioner, he was not senior-most teacher. Vijay Dhar Dangwal is said to have assumed office as ad hoc Principal on 3.7.96. Subsequently on 14.8.96 an order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools directing appointment of respondent No. 4 Prithivi Raj Garg as ad hoc Principal and on the same date the District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of respondent No. 4. True copy of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 14.8.96 is Annexure-2. A perusal of Annexure-2 shows that the previous Manager had on 1.7.93 submitted a list of lecturers in the institution and according to the list Prithivi Raj Garg is the senior-most teacher. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent No. 4 had a physical deformity because of which he is not fit to be the Principal, but, in my opinion, merely because of some physical deformity respondent No. 4 is not disentitled to be appointed as ad hoc Principal, if he is capable of doing the work of Principal. There is nothing to show that the respondent No. 4 is incapable to do the work of Principal and the allegations of the petitioner are vague and ipse dixit.
(3.) SRI Khare then contended that the respondent No. 4 was not fit to be appointed as Principal because he had interpolated the service book by changing the date from 8.7.71 to 6.7.70. In my opinion, the audit report cannot use against petitioner because if there was any such allegation, he should have been charge-sheeted and given an opportunity of hearing. Since that was not done, I cannot accept this contention. It is settled law that ordinarily the senior-most lecturer should be appointed as ad hoc Principal vide 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551. In view of the fact that respondent No. 4 is senior to Vijai Dhar Dangwal, he should be appointed as ad hoc Principal. There is no force in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed.;