- (1.) AMITAVA Lala and S. P. Mehrotra, JJ. In this writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged two orders dated 5. 11. 2004 and 17. 11. 2004 being Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. Under annexure No. 2, financial power of the petitioner was withdrawn while acting as Officiating Principal of the Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate College, Fatehpur. Such order was passed by the Joint Director of Education on behalf of the Director of Education (Higher Education), Directorate of Higher Education, Allahabad. Thereafter, the Vice Chancellor made necessary approval on 17. 11. 2004 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) and approved the financial power to the next Senior most Lecturer i. e. Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava in place of the officiating princi pal, the petitioner hereinunder Statute 13. 20 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 i. e. First Statutes of the University of Kanpur, 1977.
(2.) THE petitioner made allegation about the power of the Director of the Higher Education, U. P. Directorate of Education, Allahabad. According to the petitioner the Director of Higher Education has no authority to withdraw, cancel or rescind the power of the petitioner. The contentions of the petitioner have been strongly opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the State University as well as newly appointed officiating Principal of the concerned college. Their arguments as contended be fore this Court, hit the very root of the matter. . Learned Counsel appearing for the State and University contended that the person concerned has voluntarily sought for removal from the post of the officiating principal is clear from the communications being dated 25th June, 2004 and 23rd October, 2004 vide Annexure Nos. S. C. A-1 and 2 to the sup plementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Now the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the order.
(3.) HOWEVER, we have also to check up whether the Director of Higher Education has any authority to pass such order. We find section 2 (e) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 which give definition of the Director as follows: - "director means the Director of Education (Higher Education) and includes Joint Director of Education or Deputy Director of Education authorised by him in this behalf. " Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that such power cannot be made available under the Uttar Pradesh Universities Act, 1973, particularly, when there was no definition of the Director of Education in the said Act. Further learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Chapter XI-A of the Act which deals with the payment of salary to the teachers and other employees of a Degree College. According to us such submission is incidental factual submission. But we are concerned about ju risdiction/authority of the Director of Education. We find that the Director of Education, Joint Director of Education, Deputy Director of Education have been empowered with regard to failure on the part of the authority of the institu tion or institute to make payment of such dues.;