S.U.KHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.S. Khushwaha, learned counsel for Committee of Management and Sri U.N. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri C.S. Rai, learned counsel for Rajendra Pathak, headmaster of the school, Panchsheel Laghu Madhyamik Vidhyalay Rookundipur, Post Nonahara, District Ghazipur.
(2.) SECOND writ petition was finally disposed of by me at the admission stage on 04.03.2009 by the following order: "Grievance of the petitioner Committee of Management which is running Junior High School is that respondent no.4, Sri Rajendra Pathak, head master of the School has become completely blind and petitioner is constantly approaching the District Magistrate and Basic Shiksha Adhikari in this regard but they are not getting the eyes of respondent no.4 examined by medical board. If a Principal has become incapable of performing his duties then he may be discharged from service. Petitioner is at liberty to initiate proceeding against respondent no.4 in accordance with Rules 15 and 16 of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Condition of service of teachers) Rules 1978. Writ petition is disposed of." Thereafter on 08.07.2009, recall application was filed by Rajendra Pathak, headmaster, respondent No.4 in the said writ petition. On the said recall application, I passed the following order on 14.07.2009: "This dispute is whether the headmaster concerned is blind or not. I only passed an order that disciplinary proceedings against him may be initiated on the ground of his incapacity to act as headmaster. Said order was passed by me on 04.03.2009 while disposing of finally writ petition no. 10596 of 2009. The headmaster has filed this application for recall of the said order. The best course to decide as to whether the headmaster Sri Rajendra Pathak is capable of performing the duties of headmaster or not is to call him in Court and ask him to read few lines. If he is able to read then of course absolutely no action against him will be warranted on the ground of his alleged blindness. However, if he can not read then he does not deserve to continue as headmaster. Continuance of such person is against the interest of students. Interest of students is paramount and will have to be given preference over the interest of management as well the interest of headmaster. Learned counsel states that another writ petition in that regard is also pending which is numbered as writ petition no. 20874 of 2007. The said writ petition deserves to be heard along with this recall application subject to the approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Accordingly, place the file before Hon'ble the Chief Justice. If other writ petition is also nominated to me then both the matters must be listed at the top of the list before me on 4.8.2009 and on the said date Sri Rajendra Pathak shall remain present in Court. This order has been passed in the presence of Sri K.S.Kushwaha, learned counsel who was appearing for petitioner management in this writ petition."
(3.) THEREAFTER the aforesaid writ petition of 2007 filed by the Headmaster was nominated to me by order dated 24.07.2009 passed by Hon'ble Senior Judge on the back of Page-2 of recall application. Through the aforesaid writ petition of 2007, order of District B.S.A. Ghazipur dated 06.04.2007 has been challenged through which single operation of the accounts of the school was directed and it was further directed that salary shall be paid to the headmaster, Rajendra Pathak, who was alleged to be completely blind only after inquiry in accordance with the rules.;