HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 543/2010 (M/S) Dr. Nikhat Arifa Khan. …Petitioner. Versus Management Committee of Campus School, Pantnagar and others. …Respondents. Shri T.A. Khan, Advcocate for the petitioner, Shri Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Sah, holding brief of Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondents. Dated: April 17, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.04.2010 (annexure no.1) passed by the Educational Tribunal (District Udham Singh Nagar) in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 33 of 2010. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be restrained from making any fresh appointment on the post of Principal, till the final disposal of stay application filed by her in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 33 of 2010, pending before the said Tribunal. The petitioner is also seeking directions to respondent no.3 to unseal the office of Principal of Campus School, Pantnagar. 3. Brief facts as alleged in the petition, shorn of unnecessary details, are that in view of the educational qualification possessed by the petitioner, she was given regular appointment on 11.07.1987 on the post of Graduate Teacher (PGT) (Biology) for teaching 11th and 12th standard. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed 2 as Vice-Principal after selection. In her capacity as Vice Principal, the petitioner officiated on the post of Principal during the absence of a regular Principal. It is further alleged that the petitioner is still continuing as Officiating Principal in the Institution. The Management Committee of the Institution in its meeting dated 19.08.2008 confirmed the recommendations made by the Review Committee to grant regular pay scale to the petitioner admissible to the post of Principal. It has been further asserted that in view of the decision taken by the Managing Committee, the Secretary of the Society issued an order on 03.11.2008 whereby petitioner’s services were regularised on the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.10.2000. But the new Secretary of Managing Committee nominated by the Patron/Vice Chancellor, cancelled the order of promotion of the petitioner vide order dated 31.10.2009 with retrospective effect. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 31.10.2009, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Educational Tribunal, however the said appeal was dismissed. The order of Educational Tribunal was challenged in a Writ Petition no. 2010(M/S) 2009 before this High Court and the order dated 31.10.2009 passed by respondent no.3 as well as order dated 23.11.2009 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 62 of 2009 were set-aside by this High Court vide order dated 10.02.2010, however the respondents were given liberty to take a decision afresh in the matter after giving show cause notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 passed two orders dated 12.04.2010 (annexure no. 18 and 19) against the petitioner. These orders were challenged by the petitioner before the Educational Tribunal in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 33 of 2010. 3 The petitioner also moved an interim relief application in the said appeal in which 19.04.2010 is the date fixed. 4. During the course of arguments learned counsel for both the parties are agree that the petition may be disposed of with a direction to the learned Education Tribunal to decide the interim relief application of the petitioner moved by her in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2010, pending before Educational Tribunal (District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar) on the very next date fixed or as early as possible. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, refraining to enter into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, the learned Educational Tribunal (District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar) is directed to decide the interim relief application of the petitioner moved by her in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2010, pending before the Tribunal, if possible, on 19th April, 2010 itself or immediately thereafter. 6. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. The interim relief application (CLMA No. 2629/2010) also disposed of. 8. Let certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges. (V.K. Bist, J.) 17.04.2010 NCM: