# Sundershan Kumar v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 984 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-07-21 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35562 of 2006 - **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sundershan-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40718 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Sri Anil Bhushan Sri Digvijay Singh Miss Rashmi Tripathi S.C. Intermediate Education Act 1921 Chapter II, Regulation 2-appointment of officiating Principal-senior most teacher once declines and the power exercised for appointment-can not be exercised again-such senior person can be considered-whenever vacancy occurs in future. Held: Para 7 From a perusal of Regulation 2 Chapter II framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, a senior most 3 All] Sundershan Kumar V. State of U.P. and others 985 teacher is entitled to function as Officiating Principal. Once the power under Regulation 2 Chapter II is exercised and an adhoc Principal is be exercised, whenever a vacancy occurs again in future. Consequently, once a teacher declines to accept the post, the said person can apply again whenever the vacancy occurs. Consequently, the respondent having expressed his inability at an earlier point of time to officiate as the Principal can be considered again on the post of Principal whenever the vacancy occurred again, when a vacancy arose subsequently. Case law discussed: 1995 (25) ALR-139 2001 (2) UPLBEC-1713 2001 (2) UPLBEC-1268 Special Appeal No. 41 of 1993 decided on 7.4.94 AIR 1980 SC-1255 1997 (1) ESC-414 1999 (4) AWC-3452 2004 (1) UPLBEC-600 ## Text 984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 covered by Central as well as State Wakf Act but there was also no provision regulating the services of Imams. Here, in the present case, there is no statutory body, which may be directed to prepare a scheme for payment of minimum/living wages to the employees-workers of such Establishment. 44. In view of above discussions, in order to make fundamental right of such workers enforceable, it is directed that the Union of India and the State of U.P. shall prepare a scheme for constitution of Board on the lines of the U.P. Muslim Wakf Act, 1960 with suitable amendments commensurate to the requirements of Hindu religion representing all sects falling within the fold of Hinduism. The Board so constituted shall be self-governing autonomous body, being had to tenets, customs and other provisions sects. This Board shall register all such religious and charitable establishments/Endowments according to the norms represented by Maths, Monasteries, Temples and Religious and Charitable Trust or Societies as the case may be, through their heads or the representatives of all sects. The central as well as the State Government may also frame welfare scheme for providing minimum wages to such workers as well as other welfare measures relating to such workers/employees. As stated supra, such scheme will be prepared on the lines of the U.P. Muslim Wakf Act, 1960 or any other legislation in this regard with suitable amendments/changes as according to Hindu religion may be deemed proper after inviting objections from all sections in the fold of Hindu religion. The Scheme so framed may be placed before this Court after three months. 45. List this matter after three months i.e. on 4.9.2006. Let a copy of this order be supplied each to learned Advocate General U.P. and to Addl. Solicitor General Union of India within two weeks for taking effective steps in the light of directions aforestated. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35562 of 2006 Sundershan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Dhiraj Srivastava Sri B.K. Srivastava Sri V.K. Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Anil Bhushan Sri Digvijay Singh Miss Rashmi Tripathi S.C. Intermediate Education Act 1921 Chapter II, Regulation 2-appointment of officiating Principal-senior most teacher once declines and the power exercised for appointment-can not be exercised again-such senior person can be considered-whenever vacancy occurs in future. Held: Para 7 From a perusal of Regulation 2 Chapter II framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, a senior most 3 All] Sundershan Kumar V. State of U.P. and others 985 teacher is entitled to function as Officiating Principal. Once the power under Regulation 2 Chapter II is exercised and an adhoc Principal is be exercised, whenever a vacancy occurs again in future. Consequently, once a teacher declines to accept the post, the said person can apply again whenever the vacancy occurs. Consequently, the respondent having expressed his inability at an earlier point of time to officiate as the Principal can be considered again on the post of Principal whenever the vacancy occurred again, when a vacancy arose subsequently. Case law discussed: 1995 (25) ALR-139 2001 (2) UPLBEC-1713 2001 (2) UPLBEC-1268 Special Appeal No. 41 of 1993 decided on 7.4.94 AIR 1980 SC-1255 1997 (1) ESC-414 1999 (4) AWC-3452 2004 (1) UPLBEC-600 (Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.) 1. Heard Sri V.K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Bhushan, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. 2. Since, no factual controversy is involved in the present case, the writ petition is being decided finally without calling for a counter affidavit. 3. It transpires that a permanent Principal retired on 30.6.2003. Sri Ram Murti Garg, the respondent no. 6 was the senior most teacher and the Committee of Management offered him to officiate on the post of Principal. The respondent no. 6 expressed his inability to officiate as the Principal. Consequently, the Committee of Management appointed the next senior most teacher namely, Sri Murari Lal as the officiating Principal. Sri Murari Lal continued to perform his duties as the officiating Principal till 30.6.2006 and, upon his retirement, he handed over the charge to the respondent no. 6, as per the directions of the Authorised Controller, who had taken over the institution in the meanwhile, Prior to this, the Principal asked to Authorised Controller as to whom he should hand over the charge. Admittedly, the petitioner is junior to respondent no. 6. He, however, made a representation praying that he should be given the charge of the officiating principal upon the retirement of Sri Murari Lal. The Authorised Controller heard the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 6 and thereafter, passed the order dated 29.6.2006 directing the outgoing Principal to hand over the charge of the post of Officiating Principal to the respondent no. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that once the respondent no. 6 refused to accept the post of the Officiating principal, he lost his right and could not be appointed as a Principal. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various decisions in Satya Vir Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, 1995 (25) ALR 139, (2001) 2 UPLBEC-1713, Urmila Srivastava (Smt.) Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1268, Hari Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others and the decision dated 7.4.1994 in Special Appeal No.141 of 1993 as also a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SC-1255, Dr. N.C. Singhal Vs. 986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 Union of India and others on the proposition that once the Senior Most teacher declined to officiate as the Principal, he cannot claim his right again to officiate as the Principal. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no bar for the senior most teacher to be considered again for the appointment on the post of Principal after a vacancy again occurs. A teacher, who declines initially, could be considered again as and when the vacancy arises subsequently, and the Management takes a decision to fill up the vacancy. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of (1997) 1 ESC 414, Awadhesh Pandey Vs. Dy. Director of Education-IVth Region, Azamgarh and others, 1999 (4) AWC 3452, Committee of Management, Kisan Vidya Mandir College, Saharanpur Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2004) 1 UPLBEC 600. 6. In my view, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the submission made by him has been dealt in length the decision in the Committee of Management Vs. State of U.P., (2004) 1 UPLBEC 600. Nothing new has been added by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, this Court is not dwelling upon the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is sufficient for the Court to state that the court is in entire agreement with the said judgment. 7. From a perusal of Regulation 2 Chapter II framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, a senior most teacher is entitled to function as Officiating Principal. Once the power under Regulation 2 Chapter II is exercised and an adhoc Principal is be exercised, whenever a vacancy occurs again in future. Consequently, once a teacher declines to accept the post, the said person can apply again whenever the vacancy occurs. Consequently, the respondent having expressed his inability at an earlier point of time to officiate as the Principal can be considered again on the post of Principal whenever the vacancy occurred again, when a vacancy arose subsequently. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable and is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. -Petition dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.7.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ Petition No. 37357 of 2006 Shiv Prasad ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation Ghazipur and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kamleshwar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav S.C.