.dF-/0-^7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR JC.G.) W.P. (S)No.,<T^^ ^ / 2009 PETITIONER Dr. C.D. Tripathi S/o Late D.S. Tiwari, Aged about 59 year^—7 R/o 15, MahimaVihar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur s" VERSUS RESPQNDENTfS) ^ z^ e'/ .•••'^-ff^ .ifi^" .•t'^" Sfate of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy Department of Higher Education, Manthralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Chitani Mitani Prasad Dubey Shikshan Samiti, Trough its Chairman, Having its office at C.M. Dubey Post Graduate College, Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri Sanjay Dubey S/o Late B.P. Dubey, Chairman, Governing Body of C.M. Dubey Post Graduate College, Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER_ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ?• The petitioneraboEs !.A 'w A/E VvRIT PETlTiON (S) N0. 5444 OF 2009 •i"n RESPONDENTS Sinoie n .Ti-in-s^^i .u. Chh; \J :r Articie 226 of the Constitution of indis 1'bie Shrs Satish K. Aanihotri, J. 'resent:- Shri P.S petjtioner Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panef Lawyer No.1. Guru, counsei for the for the Sfate/resDondent Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsei for the respondent Shri Dhiraj Whankhade, counsel for the respondent No.3. ORDER (ORAL') (Passed on this 11 day of Ms^y.^^ ^.r'.^'n.' lia?uii, .eiuiu! IS tlil i.ieS'lU 3y this petition, the petitioner seeks to chailenge th& legaiity and vaiiditv of the order dated 27-7-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the charge of Principal, C.M. Dubey Post-Graduste College, iaspur, has been withdrawn from the petitioner. • Learned counsel appearmg for the petitioner submiSs that after retirement of Dr. D.K. Shrivsstava, In-charge Prineipal of the respondent Coitefle, the Detitioricr was fliven the oha.rge of the Principal of the respondent Coilege; on 27-1 -20QS - (Annexure - P/4). Thereafter, on the basis of recommendation of the respondent Colleae bv order dated 3-3-2009 t'Annexure P/7) the Governmsnt granted appfoval to the dedsion of the L-,..- & respondent ,Colleae to assian charae of the PrinciDal to the oetitioner. 3. it is furthei tended that afterass i.lWe Detitioney ¥4 ia so' the office of Principai, irreauiarities of the Colleae administration and for Vvhich he made several correspondence with 'the Bank authorities, staff of thi respondent College as weli with the then in-charge Principai Looking to the said attitude of the p< No.S/Chairman of the Governina BO( 26-7-2009 and on the basis of the min; sr, trie respon led a meetiri( f the said mee' •V UIUCI ^"7 -?• i") ^f' - / -Z from the charae of the Principa!. in an illeaaS and arbitrarv mBHHsr. 4. it was lastiy urged by Shri Koshy that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing v»'as afforded to 'the petitloner and no enquiry v»'asconducted. The impugned order v-fas passed only on the ground thst the petitioner has pointed out the irregLilarities committed by the college administration. In accordance with the policy, the senior most Professor aione may be assigned the charge of the Principal whereas in the present case, the charge of the Principal.has been given to another Professor nameiy; Dr. S.N. Agrawal, '.vho isjuniorto the I.U1 lii.iauiutir' the st appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3 makes;submissions in support ot' tne impu; t&ri rsrr^iar ?• StSU Ui UC;! I. ^-•*'-<.s>, o. c^ Cotleae. It is submitts stigmatic order, as it is onlv the order rec the additiona! charge of the Principa!; Sherefor necessary before passing the said ordi a vvitnarawai or e, no enauin? is 1 ^ -ri was passed only after convening-a meeting ot' the Executive Councii of the respondent coltege and ths decision taken by the Executive Councii has also been communicated to the Government. relief. 'herefore, the Detitioner' is !ed to any th; appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and thi documents appended thereto. it is not in dispute that in the order dated 27-1 -2009 (Annexure •- P/4), ass'ignsd the petitioner additional charge ofthe Principai, it has been specjfically mentioned that "•<iy->ic''aa)'i,<-ir< STPT CT^'i-TR TT?UT 'c???^ ^ f^Tta? ^ ^.TTOt ff!?TT4 ^t M^fS'rt ^R ^TT OTsm ^w (w.w^w, 'HMirt) ^ sT^T' gi^T f^t OT?R •W Mrfe T5TO '5T:T 7Ta? SW'T ^BrTcITr ^? SiraTCcRT -,«!!c|Qlolt| cp 'ffIqT!!' rfS WT SfT^ (?P7?e' ^TT^) ?R4"<-TR'i?f 'iiqid'! circRerf ^T •^T^q' ^qs^T eting of Executive Councii wherein the petitioner was ut hss si( In the mes also pre (Annexure - P/9), the decision to withdrav/ the additional charge »3> *°''srf^,<^-<ad^ 1 s*^f9c: ofthe Principal.from She petitioner has been taken and that too W»»-s~ t^- the said decision has atso been communicated to the State ve Circuiars dated 15-6-1983 and 6-1-1993 issued by the Govemment provide that the chargeof Principai for the purpose of dra'wing and disbursing power may be given to the senior essors/unicers 10. Bare reading of the circuiars makes it clear that this does not provide that the senior most Professor aione is to be given the a, cnarae OT i-nnc ispute that as "essor. i ne rawai is ot be examined aiso for want of impleadment of person who has been assigned the.charge of Principal with drawing '&' disbursing Dower in Dlace of the petitioner. The Granti ser is ess< in absence of reaul Principai, as the additi disburslng power of the Princip the petitioner to contlnue on the je to dischan does not coni ime Dost !n a!i [^•^ v •nani ircumstances. 12. The ne)d contention that since the senior most Professor was svailable fer grent Qf charge ofthe Principal, the same could not have been given to other Professor .deserves to be rejected. The policy as above-stated provides for grant of charge to one of the senior Professors not to the senior most respondent college is a Government aided:coliege. It is for the managing/administratiye committee to appoint a person who is one of seniors to dischame function of the reguiar Principaj 14. Gowri n absence of reaul'ar Principa!. Thus, since the Detitioner has loner c claim anv been made ciear by the learned couns't no right to the post of Principai, the petiti reilef on the ground that his right has been infringed by appointing some other person as in-charge Principal. With regard to the allegation of adverse remarks or order being tic, it has beer respondent coiiege tha! stigmatic. It will not come in the way of sut conslderstion for assi' petitloner or for any other benefrts of sen/ice. Thus, the action taken bv the respondent coilegc is just, proper and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court. Looking from allanaieSt the petitioner is not eniitled to any reiief under the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the ws-it petition is dismissed. p 15. There will be no order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge