Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Krishan for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.7 (Senior Most Teacher). No one appears on behalf of respondent no.6 even in the revised call. Facts
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case, are that a substantive vacancy occurred in the respondent no.6 institution on 20.6.2011 due to retirement of the Principal Smt. Sudesh Kakkar. Therefore, a letter dated 28.8.2011 was sent by the Committee of Management to the concerned authority for permission to fill up the vacancy. The authority concerned granted permission vide letter dated 27.7.2012. Consequent thereto an advertisement dated 6.8.2011 was published in two newspapers and a copy thereof was forwarded to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. However, certain discrepancies were found in the said advertisement and as such the Regional Deputy director of Education directed for an advertisement afresh. The Committee of Management issued a fresh advertisement which was published on 30.10.2012. Copy of the said advertisement was sent by the respondent no.6 to the concerned authority by letter dated 31.10.2012 requesting for appointment of an expert panel. By letter dated 19.11.2012, the competent authority appointed an expert panel and and communicated it to the respondent no.6. Thereafter, interview was held on 16.12.2012 in which the petitioner was selected by letter dated 17.12.2012 and the selection papers were sent for approval to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in view of the provisions of Section 16-FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921; ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Regulation 17(g) framed thereunder.
(3.) Since, approval was not communicated by the Regional Deputy Director of Education to the respondent no.6 and as such the respondent no.6 assumed deemed approval to the selection of the petitioner on account of expiry of 30 days; as provided under Regulation 17(g). He issued a letter of appointment dated 22.4.2013 to the petitioner appointing her as Principal of the institution. The petitioner joined on the post of Principal on 24.4.2013. Thereafter, the Regional Deputy Director of Education issued a letter dated 3.5.2013 disapproving appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the institution.;