Jagdish NaraIn Pandey Son of Late Sri Jai NaraIn Pandey Assistant Teacher in Sri Radha Krishna Gauri Shankar Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya Vs. Kulpati, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - ' 4. a perusal of the aforesaid statute clearly indicates that the senior most teacher of the college shall act as the principal until a duly selected principal assumes the office.tarun agarwala, j.1. the petitioner is working as an assistant teacher in radha krishna gaud shankar sanskrit vidhyalaya, kuradeeh, hariha ganj which is affiliated with the sampurnanand sanskrit vishvavidyalaya, varanasi. the principal of this institution retired on 30.6.1997 and consequently the said post became vacant. according to the petitioner he was the senior most teacher and was liable to be appointed as an adhoc principal till such time as a permanent principal was appointed it transpires that the manager of the committee of management illegally gave charge to sri vidhya bhushan shukla as an adhoc principal. the petitioner alleged that sri vidhya bhushan shukla was much junior to him and that the same had been done malafidely by the manager who was opposed to the petitioner. the petitioner made a representation to the vice chancellor of the sampurnanand university which remained pending and accordingly the petitioner approached this hon'ble court by filing writ petition no. 14006 of 1998 in which a direction was issued to the vice chancellor to pass necessary orders on the application of the petitioner. the vice chancellor by an order dated 2.12.2000 rejected the claim of the petitioner, holding that the petitioner, was not entitled to be given the charge of an adhoc principal on the ground that the petitioner was absent from 6.8.1994 to december, 1996 and therefore, his services was not continuous in nature and that he was no longer the senior most and that his case could not be considered for the post of an adhoc principal till such time the case relating to his payment of salary for the period when he was absent was not decided.2. heard sri p.n. saxena, the learned senior counsel assisted by sri d.s.m. tripathi and sri s.b. singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. sri shashi kant shukla, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that statute 12.22 of the 1st statute of the sampurnanand sanskrit university provides the procedure for an appointment of an adhoc principal. statute 12.22 of the 1st statutes reads as under:-'12.22. in case of office of the principal of an affiliated college falls vacant the senior most teacher of the college shall act as principal until a duly selected principal assumes office provided that such teacher shall draw the pay he is entitled to get on the post of the teacher and will not get the pay of the post of principal during such period.'4. a perusal of the aforesaid statute clearly indicates that the senior most teacher of the college shall act as the principal until a duly selected principal assumes the office. on the other hand, sri shukla, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view )f the statute 18.10(i), the petitioner was not entitled to act as an adhoc principal as he was not the senior most person in view of the unauthorized leave which he had taken for almost two years, stature 18.10(i) is quoted below:-'18.10(i) the period of leave for service elsewhere shall not count for seniority.'5. from a perusal of the aforesaid statutes 12.22 and 18.10(i). it is clear that the senior most teacher would act as a principal till such time as a duly selected principal assumes the office of the principal. however, in my view, if the petitioner was on leave but was not working elsewhere, in that case, statute 18.10(i) would not be applicable. statute 18.10(i) is only applicable where the (sic) takes leave in order to serve elsewhere. if the incumbent is on an unauthorized leave, then statute 18.10(i) will not be applicable and the said period will be counted for determining the seniority. in my view, statute 18.10(i) has no application in the present case.6. admittedly, the petitioner is the senior most and respondent no. 5 is junior to the petitioner. in swaminath mishra v. director of education (higher education) u.p., allahabad and ors. 1996 awc(1) 27, it was held that in view of statute 12.22 of the 1st statute of sampurnanand university, the senior most teacher was liable to act as a principal till such time as a duly selected principal was appointed.7. in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the vice chancellor, sampurnanand sanskrit vishvavidyalaya, varanasi, respondent no. 1 to pass fresh orders within two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him.