# Ram Murti Tripathi v. Registrar, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Varanasi & ors

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 414
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-04-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13873 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-murti-tripathi-v-registrar-sampurnanand-sanskrit-vidyalaya-varanasi-ors-39910
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Anil Tiwari

Statutes
of
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University- 18. 14 and 18.15- the dispute
between teachers who claim to be
appointed as acting principal shall be
decided by the Vice-Chancellor under
statute 18.15. (held in para 5)

The
petitioner
may
make
a
representation to the Vice Chancellor
and if he does so the same will be
decided preferably within one month
thereafter in accordance with law after
hearing respondent nos. 3, 6 and others
concerned by a speaking order.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
414
witness does not only create a suspicion
against 9 revisionists regarding their
participation. It offers foundation for
reasonable satisfaction regarding their
participation as alleged. It is not to be
considered at this stage as to whether
ultimately
conviction
would
be
sustainable against all or some of the
accused or the case would result in
acquittal.

10. The question is of trial of
revisionists alongwith Guddu and I am of
the view that in view of the evidence that
has come up before the Court at the trial
they have to be tried for the offences in
question alongwith Guddu, who was
already facing trial.

11. My net conclusion is that the
impugned order passed by learned Trial
Judge is perfectly justified, not suffering
from
any
illegality,
impropriety
or
incorrectness. The revision is dismissed.
The learned Trial Judge shall proceed
further in accordance with law in
pursuance of the impugned order dated
27.6.2001 passed by him.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13873 of 2002

Ram Murti Tripathi

...Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar, Sampurnanand Sanskrit
Vidyalaya, Varanasi and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.M. Sahai,
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anil Tiwari

Statutes
of
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University- 18. 14 and 18.15- the dispute
between teachers who claim to be
appointed as acting principal shall be
decided by the Vice-Chancellor under
statute 18.15. (held in para 5)

The
petitioner
may
make
a
representation to the Vice Chancellor
and if he does so the same will be
decided preferably within one month
thereafter in accordance with law after
hearing respondent nos. 3, 6 and others
concerned by a speaking order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Sri K.M. Sahai and Sri Anil
Tiwari for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4.

2. The controversy in this case is as
to who is entitled to officiate as Principal
of
Rama
Nand
Peeth
Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya Badrika Ashram Karn
Ghanta Varanasi which is affiliated to
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
Vidyalaya,
Varanasi.

3. The Statutes 18.14 and 18.15 of
the First Statutes of Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
Vishvadalaya
are
extracted
below:

"18.14. All disputes regarding
seniority of teachers (other than the
Principal) of the same college, shall be
decided by the Principal of the college
who shall give reasons for the decision.
Any teacher aggrieved by the decision of
the Principal may prefer an appeal to the
Vice Chancellor within 60 days from the
date of communication of such decision to
the teacher concerned. If the Vice
2 All] Ram Murti Tripathi Vs. Registrar, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Varanasi & ors. 415
Chancellor disagrees from the Principal,
he
shall
give
reasons
for
such
disagreement.

18.75. All disputes regarding
seniority
of
Principals
of
affiliated
colleges shall be decided by the Vice
Chancellor who shall give reasons for the
decision. Any Principal aggrieved by the
decision of the vice- chancellor may
prefer an appeal to the Executive Council
within sixty days from the date of
communication of such decision to the
Principal concerned. If the Executive
Council
disagrees
with
the
Vice
Chancellor, it shall give reasons for such
disagreement."

4. Statute 18. 14 relates to dispute of
seniority of teachers other than the
Principal, whereas State 18.15 relates to
dispute of seniority of principal. In the
present case although the dispute is
between the two teachers as to who is
senior, and hence ordinarily it should be
decided in accordance with Statue 18.14,
but since there is no permanent principal
(as the permanent principal has left the
institution) the controversy is who is
entitled to officiate as acting principal.
Statute 12.22 states:

"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."

5. Where the controversy is as to
who
can
be
appointed
officiating
Principal (pending regular selection of
Principal), the application of Statute 18.14
becomes impossible since there is no
Principal who can decide the dispute
regarding seniority of teachers. Hence in
this state of affairs we have to resort to
Statute 18.15 which has to be interpreted
to mean that a dispute regarding seniority
of teachers who claim to be officiating
Principal is also to be decided in
accordance with Statute 18.15 i.e. by the
Vice Chancellor. In our opinion this is the
only reasonable interpretation which can
be given, otherwise it will be impossible
for the dispute of the present nature to be
decided. Hence we lay down the principle
that in such cases the dispute between
teachers who claim to be appointed as
acting principal shall be decided by the
Vice Chancellor under Statute 18.15. The
petitioner claims that he is senior to
respondent no.6 who has been appointed
as officiating principal of the institution.
The petitioner has already made a
representation to the Registrar dated
15.1,2002 and 21.2.2000 (Annexure 6 and
8) to the writ petition. The petitioner may
make a representation to the Vice
Chancellor and if he does so the same will
be decided preferably within one month
thereafter in accordance with law after
hearing respondent nos. 3,6 and others
concerned by a speaking order.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the
writ petition is disposed of finally.
---------
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
416
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 253 of 2001

Murari Lal and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur
Nagar and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjai Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972- Section 16 (i)
(b) - Release Application- the matter of
release is only between the rent control
authority and the land land/owner- the
erstwhile
tenant
or
unauthorized
occupant has no concern or locus standi
to contest the release matter.
Held- Para 12 and 13

It is aboundantly clear that petitioners
have no locus standi to challenge the
order of release dated 8.2.1994 passed
by delegated authority (respondent no.
2) and subsequently affirmed by the
Revisional Court (respondent no. 1) vide
its judgment and order dated 4.10.2001.

In view of the above, Murari Lal (since
deceased),
through
his
legal
representatives,
namely
the
present
petitioners nos. 2 to 4 are not entitled to
invoke
extra
ordinary
discretionary
jurisdiction
under
Article
226,
Constitution of India.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. One Ganesh Shankar Rawat,
claiming to be the owner to premises no.
105/28, Prem Nagar, Kanpur Nagar filed
release application under section 16 (i) (b)
of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972/ before
Delegated Authority/Rent Control and
Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar on
4.2.1992/ Annexure 2 to the writ petition,
on the ground that he was in possession of
the aforesaid entire premises except one
tin shed room with open terrace, which
was earlier in the tenancy of his tenant
Sahdeo Prasad, who died about four years
prior to the filing of the present release
application leaving his widow, Smt. Bitto
Devi who lived with her daughter before
shifting to her own house- plot no. 65
Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Naubasta, Kanpur
about four months prior to the filing of the
release application. In para 4 of the
release application, it is also contended
that the said Bitto Devi had handed over
unlawfully the possession of tin shed
room with open terrace to one Murari Lal
without the consent of the owner (Ganesh
Shanker Rawat- respondent no. 3) and
that said Murari Lal illegally occupied the
accommodation in question without any
allotment. It is also stated that the owner
or the premises had filed a suit before the
civil court for eviction of the said Murari
Lal from the accommodation in question
against certain portion of the said
premises other than the accommodation in
question
pending
in
the
court
of
A.C.M.M. IXth Kanpur.

2. It may be noted that Murari Lala
died during the pendency of the release
proceedings
and
hence
legal
representatives/heirs of said Murari Lal
were substituted. Petitioner nos. 2, 3 4,5
and 6 proforma respondents/heirs of said
deceased Murari Lal. Petitioner no. 1
Murari Lal, even though i.e. is dead.

3. The Rent Control Inspector
submitted report dated 14.2.1992 in