Allahabad High Court
Yogesh Kumar Tomar vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 17 November, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18185 of 2022 Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Tomar Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Srivats Narain,Sankalp Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prabha Shankar Mishra Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri H.P. Shahi, Advocate, holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Ajay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and, Shri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires, earlier the petitioner had been made over officiating charge of Principal at Pandit Ram Swaroop Durga Higher Education, Meerut. His signatures were attested on 26.05.2022. However, on a complaint made by one Netrapal Singh, respondent no.3/District Basic Education Officer, Meerut passed another order in favour of Netrapal Singh, on 27.06.2022. The signature of the said Netrapal Singh was also attested on 29.06.2022. At that stage, the present petitioner Yogesh Kumar Tomar filed Writ - A No. 10001 of 2022 to challenge the orders passed in favour of Netrapal Singh. During pendency of that writ petition, another order came to be passed on 08.08.2022.
3. Thereafter, present petitioner had filed amendment application to challenge the order dated 08.08.2022. While that application was allowed in the meanwhile, present impugned order dated 08.09.2021 came to be passed this time by the DIOS attesting the signature of the private respondent no.4/Munnu Singh. Accordingly, the petitioner withdrew Writ - A No. 10001 of 2022 with liberty to file afresh writ petition, to allow the petitioner to assail the order dated 08.09.2022.
4. Then, referring to another order of this Court dated 02.11.2022 in Writ - A No. 16244 of 2022 (Netrapal Singh vs. State of U.P. & 5 Ors.), it has been submitted, the claim of Netrapal Singh stands finally determined. He being junior to the present respondent no.4 as a Teacher in Junior High School, he would have no claim to officiating charge in face of Munnu Singh claiming that charge.
5. Last, it has been submitted, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he is at serial no. 1 of the seniority of Assistant Teachers in the High School section at the institution. Therefore, by virtue of that status, his claim would always stand in preference to that of Munnu Singh. Further, he would submit, Munnu Singh does not have teaching experience of Classes 9 to 12. He may never be eligible to be given officiating charge of Principal of the institution.
6. While fact issues have not been admitted by learned counsel for private respondent no.4, it could not be disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and learned counsel for private respondent no.4 that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of any notice to the present petitioner and without making any consideration of the claim set up by him.
7. Insofar as on the common showing of the respondents, initially, officiating charge was given to the petitioner in face of the earlier litigation brought by the petitioner, it has to be recognized that the petitioner has been claiming that charge and he had not given up his claim.
8. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner was necessary to be considered along with that of Munnu Singh. Insofar as the claim of Netrapal Singh is concerned, that stands determined in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Netrapal Singh (supra) dated 02.11.2022.
9. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. Present petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The impugned order dated 08.09.2022 passed by DIOS Meerut is set aside.
(ii) DIOS Meerut shall now issue a fresh notice to the petitioner as also private respondent no.4 and the Committee of Management of the institution - Pandit Ram Swaroop Durga Higher Education, Meerut fixing short date within a period of three weeks. After hearing all sides and after making due verification from the record, appropriate orders may be passed dealing with the rival claims set up by the petitioner and the private respondent, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today.
10. In the meanwhile, salary payment of the teachers that appears to have been held up may be ensured applying the principle of single operation. However, this arrangement will exist only for the period of six weeks from today or till the decision to be made by the DIOS Meerut, whichever is earlier.
Order Date :- 17.11.2022 Prakhar