D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Acting Principal by the Committee of Management on 23.12.1989 after the regular Principal had retired on 30.6.1987 and Sri Karam Singh Manav the senior-most teacher who was appointed as Acting Principal was suspended on 3.12.1989. From Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It appears that the said Sri Karam Singh Manav by his letter, dated 31.12.1989 requested to the Committee of Management to permit him to work as Lecturer in Geography since he did not desire to work as Principal. The order dated 23.12.1989 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 6833 of 1987 connected with Writ Petition No. 23330 at 1990 between Prem Singh Manav v. District Inspector of School, in which the petitioner was figuring as respondent No. 3. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on 30.4.1991 Inter alia holding that the respondent No. 3 being senior-most Lecturer as mentioned above, is entitled to work as Acting Principal. The order passed by the District Inspector of Schools does not suffer from any infirmity. Mr. Shukla on this background claims that by reason of the said judgment, it appears that the principles laid down in paragraph 13 of the decision in the case of Munishiuar Dutt Pandey v. Ramjeet Tiwari and others, (1997) 1 UPLBEC 1999 is satisfied and as such, this Court should pass an appropriate order declaring the petitioner as deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity as Principal of this school by reason of Section 33A (1A) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act. 1982.
(2.) Mr. K. R. Singh, the learned standing counsel, on the other hand contends that unless the factual aspects are determined, no order in favour of the petitioner could be passed. Therefore, the District Inspector of Schools should be directed to pass appropriate order in the light of the decision in the case of Munishwar Dutt Pandey.
(3.) Mr. V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand contends in reply that no counter-affidavit has since been filed on behalf of the Commission. Therefore, the facts appear to have been admitted since respondent No. 3, the Committee of Management was also a party to the proceedings.;