Vivek Chaudhary, J. - (1.) The petitioner by the present writ petition is challenging the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 24.6.2016 whereby, the claim of petitioner to be appointed as Ad hoc/Officiating Principal of the Union Inter college, Ram Nagar, Barabanki, has been rejected by the Committee of Management and instead, the name of Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh is forwarded/appointed for being given the said charge and order dated 11.5.2016 whereby, the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signature of Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh as Ad hoc/Officiating Principal of the College.
(2.) The facts of the case are, that the petitioner claims to be the senior most teacher of the Institution and claims that in view of provisions of Section 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982, he is entitled for being appointed as Ad hoc/Officiating Principal of the College on account of retirement of the Principal of the College. The Committee of Management by the impugned resolution did not find favour with the petitioner and rejected his claim. While rejecting the claim, the Committee of Management referred to an incident of the year 2010, when the petitioner due to his misconduct, was restrained from doing any examination work of the Board for a period of five years. Further, a reference is made to an incident of the year 1993 when the petitioner remained absent for around three months without any leave application. The third incident referred to is of the period of 2008 when the petitioner for two days was given the change of the post of Principal, as the then Principal had suddenly gone on casual leave, and on the said two days, there was a serious incidence of misbehaviour with the girl students. When a teacher objected to it, he was thrashed and thus, a total indiscipline and chaos remained for the said two days, when the petitioner was given charge of the post of Principal. A reference is also made to detailed representations given by the Guardians and Teachers Association and by the teachers/employees of the Institution requesting that the petitioner is not competent enough to look after the interest of the Institution as Principal and for the proper administration and discipline he should not be given the charge of the said post even on ad hoc/officiating basis. On the basis of the said charges, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Committee of Management did not find favour with the petitioner and rejected his claim.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner strongly argued that the said charges are old in time and cannot be taken into consideration, now, in the year 2016. He further submits that even presuming that there was any order passed by the Board with regard to examination, the same has no concern now on his working as Ad hoc/Officiating Principal. Similarly, he submits, that, the petitioner had taken charge as a Principal in the year 2008 for two days and had no control on any misbehaviour by a student, done with another girl student and with the teacher of the Institution. Hence such an old incident cannot be searched out to punish the petitioner now. He further submits that the Committee of Management somehow wants to oust him and wanted to give the charge of the post of the Principal to other ousting the petitioner, for extraneous reason.;