- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri ASHOK Khare, learned Senior Advo cate for the petitioner, Dr. H. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the respon dent No. 6 and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8. 9. 2007 passed by District inspector of Schools directing the Committee of Management to pass resolution for the appointment on the post of officiating Principal of a permanent Lecturer. The another order challenged is order dated 6. 10. 2007 passed by District Inspector of Schools by which Committee of Man agement was directed to give charge to Suresh Kumar, Lecturer (English) and submit necessary papers for attestation of signature of Suresh Kumar. Bhola Nath Sarrof Inter College is a recognized Institution governed by the provisions of UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and is also receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The petitioner was appointed as an ad hoc assistant teacher in L. T. grade on 23. 12. 1982. He was regularized on the post of assistant teacher in L. T. grade w. e. f. 6. 4. 1991. Due to retirement of Radheylal, Lecturer in Sanskrit, the vacancy on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit arose. The Committee of Manage ment passed a resolution on 1st July, 1996 for giving ad hoc promotion to the petitioner as Lecturer in Sanskrit. The District Inspector of Schools, by order dated 4th July, 1998, approved ad hoc promotion and the petitioner claims to be working as Lecturer in Sanskrit w. e. f. 13th July, 1998. The petitioner's qualifica tions are M. Sc. (Math), M. A. (Economics), M. A. (Political Science), M. A. (San skrit), M. A. (Hindi) and L. T. The requisition for filling the post by promotion is claimed to have been submitted by the Committee of Management vide requisi tion dated 27. 12. 1997 to the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission. However, the petitioner has not yet been substantively promoted as Lecturer in Sanskrit. The post of Principal of the Institution fell vacant due to the retirement of Hari Shanker Sharma, who retired on 30st June, 2007. The Committee of Man agement passed a resolution on 17th June, 2007 deciding to promote the peti tioner as officiating Principal. The petitioner joined on the post of officiating Prin cipal on 1st July, 2007 and since then he is working as officiating Principal. The respondent No. 6, Suresh Kumar, was appointed in the Institution as Lecturer in English after the recommendation of U. P. Secondary Services Selection Board on 20. 5. 2004. Prior to the appointment in the Institution, Suresh Kumar, respon dent No. 6, was working as Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade in Gulkandi Ram Ram Singh Inter College, Nauni, Agra, w. e. f. 8. 8. 1989. The representation was submitted by the respondent No. 6, Suresh Kumar claiming appointment as offi ciating Principal, The District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter dated 9th August, 2007 to the Management. The said letter has been replied by the Management by its letter dated 17lh August, 2007 claiming that the petitioner is senior to Suresh Kumar and the appointment of Suresh Kumar has already been challenged in the writ petition No. 21780 of 2005 filed by the petitioner. The Committee of Manage ment further claimed that the post on which Suresh Kumar has joined was the post reserved for scheduled cast candidate. The District Inspector of Schools, thereafter wrote another letter dated 6. 10. 2007 asking the Management to give charge to Suresh Kumar on the post of officiating Principal. Challenging these letters dated 9th August, 2007 and 6. 10. 2007, this writ petition has been filed. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order of District Inspector of Schools raised following two submissions: (1) The petitioner is working as ad hoc Lecturer in English which has been approved by District Inspector of Schools from 4th July, 1998 and the petitioner's papers for substantive promotion are pending before U. P. Sec ondary Education Selection Board from 27. 12. 1997, hence it is none of the fault of the petitioner that his substantive appointment has not yet been ap proved. The petitioner has experience as ad hoc Lecturer of about 9 years and he has been shown senior to the respondent No. 6 in the seniority list in all the records of the Institution. The Committee ol Management has rightly passed the resolution in favour of the petitioner for giving him officiating ap pointment. (2) The respondent No. 6 does not fulfil the qualification for appointment on the post of Principal of Institution as prescribed in Appendix A Chapter 2 Regulation 1 of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The respondent No. 6 does not have four years experience of teaching in class IX to XII. His experi ence to teach in class 11 and 12 is only of three years, hence he is not eligible for appointment on the post of Principal.
(3.) DR. H. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 refut ing the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that peti tioner being only an ad hoc Lecturer, cannot be treated to be senior to the respon dent No. 6, who is substantively appointed as Lecturer in the Institution on 20th May, 2004. It is claimed that the respondent No. 6 had experience of 12 years in teaching the class of IX and X in Gulkandi Ram Ram Singh Inter College, Nauni, Agra, and he fulfilled the qualification as prescribed in Appendix A Chapter 2 Regulation 1 of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Ave considered the submissions of Counsel for the parties and hAve perused the record.;