CIVIL REVISION NO.3506 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 02, 2008 Sneh Lamba .....Petitioner VERSUS School Managing Committee, Public Sr.Sec. School Bal Bhawan, Bhiwani and another. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The present revision is directed against the order passed by the Trial Court and by the lower Appellate Court declining the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim injunction for staying the recruitment process for the post of Principal of the respondent- School. Besides, the petitioner has also challenged her reversion from the post of Principal to her earlier post of T.G.T Teacher, which is stated to have been ordered without issuing of any show cause notice and without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is accordingly urged that the case reveals violation of principles of natural justice. CIVIL REVISION NO.3506 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: It is pleaded that respondent-School is an unaided Institution affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education. The Managing Committee of the School consisted of Deputy Commissioner as its Chairman. It is pleaded that the Managing Committee had passed a resolution in the year 1993, that appointment to the post of Principal will be made directly and not by way of promotion. This is urged to be only an administrative decision. In the year 1996, on retirement of the then Principal, Smt.Usha Soni was appointed and promoted as Principal being the senior most Teacher. On her superannuation, school Managing Committee, under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner entrusted the charge of the post of Principal in officiating capacity to the petitioner on 28.2.2001. The petitioner satisfactorily officiated as Principal for a period of two years and thereafter she was appointed as Principal on regular basis with effect from 1.1.2002. She was placed in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500/-. Now after expiry of almost seven years, the petitioner has been served with the impugned order on dated 15.5.2008 on 16.5.2008, reverting her to earlier post. Mrs.Versha has now been given an additional charge of the post of Principal. Applications have also been invited for the post of Principal. The petitioner has filed a suit, seeking declaration for setting-aside the order dated 15.5.2008, directing her reversion alongwith the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim injunction as brought out. The respondents were put to notice and have filed reply. It is pointed out that the suit is not maintainable and is rendered CIVIL REVISION NO.3506 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: infructuous. As per the stand taken by the respondents, Smt.Versha, P.G.T, has been given additional charge of Principal on permanent basis w.e.f 16.5.2008. It is further pointed out that the qualification for the post of Principal are P.G.T. whereas the petitioner was working as T.G.T and as such, was not eligible for being appointed as Principal. The Trial Court declined the prayer of the petitioner mainly on the ground that she is not fulfilling the requisite qualification for being appointed as Principal. The principles on which interim injunction is granted are well settled. The requirement of granting interim injunction is the existence of prima-facie case in favour of a party and so also the balance of convenience in his favour. The petitioner has already been relieved of the post of Principal and in her place, Smt.Versha has already been appointed. The prayer made for interim direction to stay reversion, if granted, would virtually mean permitting the petitioner to work as Principal, which is the main relief sought by her. If ultimately, the petitioner succeeds in her suit, she would get the entire benefits due to her in regard to pay and allowances etc. The petitioner as such, is not likely to suffer any irreparable loss if the interim injunction is not granted to her. The balance of convenience accordingly is not in her favour. The counsel representing the petitioner also could not say much in regard to eligibility of the petitioner on account of she being T.G.T., for she being appointed as a Principal. There is, thus, no prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner. The Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal has CIVIL REVISION NO.3506 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: taken care to protect the interest of the petitioner by directing that recruitment if any made, shall be subject to the decision of the present case. There is no irregularity or infirmity in the exercise of discretion, which would require interference in the present revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. July 02, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE