Dhrua NaraIn Dubey Vs. District Inspector of Schools and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - stop gap arrangement - regulation 21 of chapter 3 of u.p. intermediate education act, 1921 - petitioner appointed as principal of college on stop gap arrangement basis due to illness of respondent - respondent recovered from illness - petitioner cannot claim any right to post - held, petitioner cannot be allowed to act as principal till retirement of respondent . - d. k. seth, j.1. by a resolution dated 10.4.2000 on account of ill-health of sri dhruv narain shukla, the respondent no. 3. the principal of the college, the petitioner dhrua narain dubey was given charge of head master. he was also appointed center superintendent for the board examination and was also entrusted with the responsibility of conducting home examination. in the said resolution, it was pointed out that sri dhruv narain shukla. respondent no.3 is entitled to receive the salary of principal till 30.6.2000. by an order dated 29.4.2000, pursuant to the resolution dated 10.4.2000, the district inspector of schools. siddharthnagar had approved the entrustment of the administrative and financial power upon srt dhrua narain dubey providing that sri dhruv narain shukla. respondent no. 3 will continue to receive the salary of principal till 30.6.2000 and had also approved the signature of sri dhrua narain dubey, the petitioner as principal of the college. sri dhrua narain dubey has thereafter been discharging the duty of principal. subsequently by order dated 2.5.2000, the said order dated 29.4.2000 was reversed and the petitioner was asked to discharge his original function. this order has since been challenged in this petition.2. sri m. d. mishra. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by reason of the resolution dated 10.4.2000 and the approval contained in the letter dated 29.4.2000. the petitioner had acquired a valuable legal right and that sri dhruv narain shukla had retired in april, 2000. therefore, he is no more the principal and cannot continue as principal as of right unless his period of principal is extended. according to him, even if the said order is to be recalled in that event, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing before passing of the resolution dated 10.4.2000. the petitioner was never given any opportunity of hearing. the home examination is continuing and the petitioner having been incharge of the same his position cannot be disturbed and that the interest of the respondent no. 3 has been protected by securing his pay till 30.6.2000 and sri dhruv, narain shukla. respondent no. 3 will suffer neither any prejudice nor any loss, therefore, the impugned order should be quashed.3. mr. siddharth shukla. learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. on the other hand, contends that the appointment of the petitioner was a stop-gap arrangement on account of illness of respondent no. 3. as soonas the respondent no. 3 recovers, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue. that apart, according to him, respondent no. 3 was never ill and it was only a mala fide attempt to humiliate and harass him. he also contends that the petitioner being the principal in view of the regulation no. 21 of chapter iii of the regulation framed under u. p. intermediate education act. the respondent no. 3 is entitled to continue as principal till the end of session, namely: 30.6.2000 though he might attain the age of the superannuation in april. 2000. sri dhruv narain dubey. the petitioner having been appointed on stop-gap arrangement cannot claim any right, therefore, the petition should be dismissed.4. i have heard learned counsel for both parties at length.5. it is an admitted position that the respondent no. 3 has retired in april, 2000, but by reason of regulation 21. chapter iii of the regulation, the respondent no. 3 is entitled to continue till 30.6.2000. namely, the end of the session. since the respondent no. 3 has attained the age of superannuation in april. 2000, he cannot continue as principal beyond the end of the session and his prayer for extension was also negatived on account of his ill-health. if it is so in that event, if the respondent no. 3 is due to retire on 30.6.2000, he remains eligible to continue till 30.6.2000. as principal. his such continuation may not disturb the appointment of the petitioner as center superintendent or incharge for conducting the home examination which he may continue to do so as appointed.6. so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is apparent from the resolution dated 10.4.2000 that he was appointed on stop-gap basis as the seniormost teacher on account of the ill-health of the respondent no. 3. the pay of respondent no. 3 is also protected till 30.6.2000. though the petitioner is not entitled to get any financial benefit enabling him to discharge the function of principal. if he is not permitted to discharge theduty as principal, he will not sufferany financial loss or otherwise. that he having been appointed as principal was discharging the duty of the principal, according to him a right had accrued to him. but this proposition does not appear to be sound.7. admittedly, it was a stop-gap arrangement which was made by the resolution dated 10.4.2000 since approved by the district inspector of schools on 29.4.2000. if in the meantime the respondent no. 3 recovers from the illness, he has every right to continue as principal till 30.6.2000 which is on the other hand the right available to respondent no. 3. by reason of stopgap arrangement, the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue so long the respondent no. 3 does not retire. the question to continue as principal would be available to the petitioner immediately after 30.6.2000. sri dhruv narain dubey. the petitioner will not suffer any loss if his dream is prevented from coming truth till 30.6.2000 which he will get on the expiry of 30.6.2000 when the respondent no. 3 retires.8. thus, i do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. the writ petition fails and is accordingly,dismissed. no cost.