Allahabad High Court
Tulsi Das vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 July, 2010
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31701 of 2010 Petitioner :- Tulsi Das Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Sudeep Dwivedi Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,Ripu Daman Singh Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
The petitioner who claims to be the senior most lecturer in Raja Sharda Mahesh Inter College, Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution') has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 8th February, 2010 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Vindyachal Region, Mirzapur.
It needs to be noticed that earlier, two teachers of the same Institution had also sought the quashing of the order dated 8th February, 2010 and this petition was dismissed by this Court by the judgment and order dated 9th March, 2010 which is quoted below:-
"Two teachers of Raja Sharda Mahesh Inter College, Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 8th February, 2010 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Vindyachal Region, Mirzapur by which he has changed the Authorised Controller earlier appointed by him in the Institution.
The records of the writ petition indicate that the District Inspector of Schools had been functioning as the Authorised Controller in the Institution since a long time, but by the order dated 22nd May, 2009, the Joint Director of Education appointed the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools as the Authorised Controller. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 48200 of 2009 on the ground that there was no regular Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and one Bhaiya Lal Chaudhary who was working in the office of District Rural Development Agency, Sonebhadra had been given the additional charge. This Court by the judgment and order dated 18th September, 2009 quashed the order dated 22nd May, 2009 but left it open to the Joint Director of Education to either appoint a regular Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of the District Inspector of Schools or appoint any other officer as the Authorised Controller. The Joint Director of Education then appointed Sri Ram Yagya who was working as a regular Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of the District Inspector of Schools as the Authorised Controller. By the impugned order dated 8th February, 2010, the Joint Director of Education has now appointed the Principal of the Government Inter College, Anpara, District Sonebhadra as the Authorised Controller.
It is the contention of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the said order deserves to be set aside as it has been issued with malafide intention to appoint another Officiating Principal of the College.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, while respondent No.6 is represented by Sri R.K. Ojha. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners, who are teachers in the Institution, have no locus standi to challenge the impugned order.
The preliminary objection deserves to be accepted. The petitioners, who are working as the teachers in the Institution, can possibly have no grievance as to who should be the Authorised Controller. In the earlier writ petition, the Court had interfered as there was no regular Finance and Accounts Officer and the person who had been replaced was showing unusual interest in continuing as the Authorised Controller. This apart, cogent reasons have been given by the Joint Director of Education in the impugned order for changing the Authorised Controller.
No relief, therefore, can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
The petitioner, who is also a teacher in the same Institution, has now filed this petition for setting aside the same order that was impugned in the aforesaid petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9th March, 2010, the present petition also deserves to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.7.2010 GS