Allahabad High Court
Kaushal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 17 September, 2020
Bench: Govind Mathur, Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 576 of 2020 Appellant :- Kaushal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.B.N.Tripathi,Anil Kumar Singh,Nitin Chandra Mishra Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Sri A.B.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 7.
This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 26th February, 2020, passed by learned Single Bench in Writ - A No. 648 of 2019.
By the judgment impugned, learned Single Bench affirmed the order passed by the competent authority dated 19th December, 2018 reverting the appellant-petitioner to his original post while revoking his suspension.
The argument advanced before us is that the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the appellant-petitioner was officiating as Principal being the senior most lecturer and he could not have been reverted to the original post without adhering the procedure prescribed under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. To substantiate his contention, he has also placed reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Pramodini Agarwal Vs. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and Others, reported in 1993 LawSuit (ALL) 226.
On going through the judgment aforesaid and all other relevant facts, we do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
In the case in hand, the appellant-petitioner has been reverted to his original post in view of the fact that he is facing a disciplinary action as well as he has also been subjected to proceedings for adjudication of criminal charges. Suffice to mention that for the alleged act, he also remained behind the bars for 22 days.
It is well settled that the prime importance in service is the administration of institution / office and to secure that it is always open for an employer to take an appropriate action. Learned Single Bench after considering this aspect of the matter dismissed the petition for writ on the count that it would not be in the interest of the institution and service to allow the appellant-petitioner on the post of Principal.
So far as the judgment cited by learned counsel is concerned that pertains to entirely different sets of facts where a senior most lecturer was allowed to continue as officiating Principal but salary was not paid to her and without assigning any reason she was reverted to her original post.
In view of whatever stated above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The appeal hence, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.9.2020 Rameez .
(Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur,C.J.)