High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shyo Raj Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 248 of 2005  RD-AH 685 (9 March 2005)
Chief Justice's Court
Special Appeal No. 248 of 2005
Shyo Raj Singh vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray,CJ
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J
This is an appeal from an order dated 11.2.2005 wherein the learned Single Judge has directed that the respondent no. 6 being the seniormost teacher in the institution, he should officiate as Principal and as such no enquiry whatsoever was required, in the case regarding the rival claims put forward by the respondent no. 6 in the writ petition, and the writ petitioner himself, who has been functioning as Principal from the expiry of June 2003.
It so happens that the respondent no. 6 was the Principal in 1998 but he was twice successively superseded by two persons who were at that material time placed at serial nos. 2 and 3 of the list in question. The respondent no. 6 submits that those two persons should not have been appointed superseding him, but that submission is made late in the day as the person who was at serial no. 3 had continued as Principal up to June 2003. After his retirement, the Committee of Management appointed the appellant as the Principal.
Then the grievances of the respondent no. 6 surfaced. He made representations before the Joint Director of Education; when no attention was paid to that complaint he approached the District Magistrate. On this approach, the District Magistrate directed that the inquiry to be made and we are given the impression that the Joint Director of Education is now holding an inquiry.
The problem, however, remains that the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction in this matter to pass an order for commencement of an inquiry and the learned Single Judge in the Court below has held that the District Magistrate's order was absolutely without jurisdiction. We uphold that finding. We also uphold the finding that the claim of seniority put forward by respondent no. 6 also needs to be gone into. These, however, cannot be the subject matter of any positive order in favour of respondent no. 6 in this matter, because it is not a writ petition filed by respondent no. 6 and there are no final reliefs prayed for by the respondent no. 6 in this appeal. As such the appeal is allowed. The findings upheld by us, however, will remain confirmed even at against writ petitioner. We declare that the seniority of the respondent no. 6 needs to be gone into and his claim for being appointed as Principal deserves consideration as against the continued holding of the Principal's office by the appellant. The direction by the learned Single Judge asking the respondent no. 6 to officiate as Principal forthwith is, however, cancelled and set aside.
Our order and observations will not in any manner prevent the respondent no. 6 hereafter from proceeding in accordance with law to have his rights of seniority established in the manner as he might be advised. The present inquiry by the Joint Director of Education must cease as it was a result of an order passed by the District Magistrate without jurisdiction. This does not mean that the Joint Director cannot start inquiry afresh in accordance with law.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.