High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Saran Lal Saxena v. State Of Up Thru' Secy Higher Edu And Others - WRIT - A No. 48871 of 2004  RD-AH 7063 (31 March 2006)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 48871 OF 2004
Ram Saran Lal Saxena ------------- Petitioner
State of U.P. & Ors. ------------- Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.
This writ petition has been filed for restraining respondent no. 10 Shri D.P. Singh to act as a Principal of the National Post Graduate College, Bhongaon, District Mainpuri.
The writ petition has been filed raising the grievance that the date of birth of said respondent no. 10 is 3.1.1944 and he had been appointed vide order dated 17.10.1998 as a regular Principal, duly selected by U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act. At that relevant time, the age of retirement of the teachers was 58 years. Thus, the said respondent no. 10 ought to have retired on 2.1.2002. However, before he could reach the age of superannuation, the age of teacher was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. However, before reaching the age of superannuation on 2.1.2004, the age was further enhanced by two years, and thus, giving all benefits, he reached the age of superannuation on 2.1.2006. The respondent no. 10 is still continuing as Officiating Principal even after reaching the age of superannuation, in view of the fact that there are statutory provisions/Government Orders that if a teacher retires in a mid academic session, in the interest of the students, he would be permitted to continue till the end of the academic session. But, the Government Order dated 2.6.2001 provided that if a person is working as a regular Principal and attains the age of superannuation, he shall continue till the end of academic session only as a teacher. However, he shall not be entitled to perform the duties and functions of Principal/Officiating Principal. In view of the above, it is submitted by Shri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner that whatever had happened in the past, the said respondent no. 10 is not entitled to continue as an Officiating Principal after 2.1.2006.
The learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents and Shri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for the University have fairly conceded to the aforesaid settled legal proposition.
Shri Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has relied upon the clarification dated 5.7.2001, issued by the State, to clarify the position in respect of Circular dated 2.6.2001 to the effect that the said provision of the Circular dated 2.6.2001 shall also be applicable in case of the Officiating Principal. However, the said Circular does not confer any right in favour of the said respondent to continue as Officiating Principal.
We are fully satisfied that by no stretch of imagination, the said respondent can be permitted to continue as Officiating Principal after 2.1.2006.
Thus, in view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that respondent no. 10 is restrained from working as Officiating Principal, but he can continue as a teacher upto the end of the academic session. The vacancy may be intimated to the Commission to be filled up by regular selection. Meanwhile, the Officiating Principal may be appointed in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.