Allahabad High Court
Netrapal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 2 November, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16244 of 2022 Petitioner :- Netrapal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Anoop Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bajrang Bahadur Singh,Satya Prakash Singh Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Satya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent no.6 and; learned Standing Counsel.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, insofar as the it is not disputed, private respondent no.6 is the senior most teacher eligible to hold officiating charge of the institution Pandit Ram Swaroop Durga Vidhyalaya Higher Secondary School, Sisauli, Meerut and insofar as it is further not disputed that one Shri Yogesh Tomar was first made over officiating charge of the aforesaid institution on 01.04.2022, contrary to law, upon removal of the said Shri Yogesh Tomar, the rule of seniority had to be given effect to. Therefore, the respondent no.6 had a preferential right over the petitioner on the date of making over officiating charge on the post of Head Master of the above described institution.
3. The fact that the said respondent no.6 admitted to have remained on medical leave from 28.3.2022 to 4.4.2022 would be of no benefit to the present petitioner inasmuch as that leave may have been read against the respondent no.6 qua the charge of officiating Head Master being given over to Shri Yogesh Tomar. However, upon removal of the said Yogesh Tomar which obviously was done after 4.4.2022, private respondent no.6 merited first consideration of his claim to be given officiating charge considering his higher seniority position viz-a-viz, the petitioner. At that point, the said respondent is not shown to have declined to hold officiating charge.
4. In such facts, the submission being advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner having once declined officiating charge, the respondent no.6 cannot re-claim it is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Respondent no.6 never declined to hold officiating charge as may have resulted in that right being offered to the petitioner. Any charge made over to the present petitioner without respondent no.6 having first declined, remained contrary to law.
5. In view of the above, no error is found in the impugned order inasmuch as it preserves the officiating charge of respondent no.6 as he is undisputedly senior to the petitioner.
6. Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.11.2022 Prakhar