IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 172 of 2006 Madho Singh S/o Sri Kunwar Bahadur Singh, R/o Ward No.1, Canal Road, Kichha Behind FCI Godown, District Udham Singh Nagar. ..………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Education Civil Secretariat, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Director of Education, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 3. District Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Committee of Management, Sri Krishna Merchant Association Inter College, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar through its Manager. .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.4. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Date of Decision : 05.03.2011 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) Petitioner, a Lecturer of a college, was asked to discharge the duties of the Principal in his officiating capacity, as the Principal of college, in view of his illness, was unable to discharge such duties. While the petitioner was, thus, officiating as Principal of the college, the Principal of the college died and, accordingly, petitioner continued to discharge the duties of the Principal of the college in his officiating capacity. The competent authority approved the said arrangement. Subsequently, there were 2 certain complaints against the functioning of the petitioner. Those were inquired into by a Principal of another college. The inquiry report found substance in the allegations, which were inquired into. In such view of the matter, the competent authority, by an order, relieved the petitioner of his responsibilities of officiating Principal of the college in question and directed charge to be given to another person. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that since he is the senior most, he alone should be permitted to discharge officiating duties of the Principal and the person, who has been asked to take over charge from the petitioner, is admittedly junior to the petitioner. The next contention of the petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer was holding the same and equal post as was being held by the petitioner and as such he was incompetent to function as Inquiry Officer. 3. We do not think that there is any substance in the second contention of the petitioner, mentioned above. The fact that the petitioner was discharging the duties of the Principal in his officiating capacity did not make the petitioner Principal of the college, he was and continued to remain substantively a Lecturer of the college. The person, who held the inquiry, was Principal of another college. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to contend that a person holding similar rank held inquiry against the petitioner. In any event, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring to our notice any law preventing holding of inquiry by a person holding equal rank against a person whose conduct is being inquired. 4. It is true that normally officiating charge is given to the senior most, but when it is found on probe that the senior most has not been able to maintain the confidence reposed in him, there is no bar in replacing him by a junior. 3 5. That being the situation, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. ( Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 05.03.2011 P. Singh