HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. No. Lodg No. 835 of 2003 (S/S) Balam Singh Raikwal vs. State of Uttaranchal and others Approved for reporting. _______________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision. 17.12.2003 Initial of Judge HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition Log. No. 835 of 2003 (S/S) Balam Singh Raikwal ….………… Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal, Through Secretary, Education, Dehradun & others ..………… Respondents Mr. B.S. Khanka, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dated:-17.12.2003 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Rule. Admit. Issue notice. parties agreed that the matter may be finally decided at the admission stage. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give the charge of Principal to the petitioner of Junior High School (Hat Kalika Mandir) Binddu Khatta, Lalkuwa, District Nainital. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that according to the petitioner he was appointed on 5th November 1997 on the post of Head Master of Junior High School (Hat Kalika Mandir) Binddu Khatta, Lalkuwa, District Nainital. The petitioner has submitted that on 28th August 1998 the order was passed by the Manager of the said Junior High School for the permanent appointment on the post of Head Master of the petitioner. The petitioner has further submitted that the Junior High School has been upgraded as a High School in the year 2001. On 20th June 2002, the management has sent the approval of the petitioner as a Principal and the recommendation was sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 20th June 2002. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is holding the post of Principal of an unaided High School, but the committee of Management had appointed the respondent No. 6 on 19th August 2002, who was the part-time teacher in the School and the Management has directed the petitioner to give the charge of the Principal to the respondent No. 6. The petitioner has referred a Circular dated 13th January 2002 by which it will appear that under the Intermediate Education Act, if the Head Master of the Junior High School is having the qualification of becoming the Principal of the upgraded school, the same can be considered and it will not be advisable to bifurcate the Junior High School and Urgraded High School in two parts. The petitioner has submitted that in view of the Government Order dated 13th January 2003 on 18th October 2003 an order was passed directing the petitioner to take the charge of the Principal. Clause 2 and 3 of the Government Order dated 13th January 2003 is quoted below:- ^^2- iz/kkuk/;kid dh fu;qfDr mRrj izns’k ¼mRrjkapy½ f’k{kk vf/kfu;e 1921 ds v/;k; nks o ifjf’k"V & d ds vuqlkj U;wure vgZrk okys v/;kidksa dks fu;qDr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ftl twfu;j gkbZLdwy ds iz/kkuk/;kid ;fn vgZ rks dk;Z lapkyu dk nkf;R/o mugs lkSik tk ldrk gSA 3- fo|ky; dks iznRr ekU;rk ds fu;ekuqlkj nks Hkkxksa esa foHkDr djuk mfpr ugha gSA However, the appointment in favour of the petitioner dated 18.10.2003 is reproduced as under:- ^^,rn~}kjk rRdky izHkko ls Jh ¼Mk0½ ckye flag jSDoky] iz/kkuk/;kid] twfu;j gkbZLdwy Lrj dks mPphd`r mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;] fcUnq[krk ¼gkV dkfydk efUnj½ ykydqvka uSuhrky esa lfpo] mRrjkapy f’k{kk ,oa ijh{kk ifj"kn] jkeuxj ds i=kad ekU;rk@jkeuxj@743@02&03] fn0 13-01-03 ,oa ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] uSuhrky ds i=kad ekU;rk@25828@2002&03] fn0 22 tuojh] 2003 ,oa iqu% i=kad 16823&24@2002&03] fn0 2@3&09&03 ds vkns’kksa ds vuqikyu esa iw.kZ ;ksX;rk/kkjh gksus ds QyLo:I gkbZLdwy Lrj ds iz/kkukpk;Z in ij fu;qfDr iznku dh tkrh gS rFkk mUgs vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os rRdky mDr in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djsaA Jh ¼Mk0½ jSDoky dks fo|ky; ds for lfgr ekU;rk gksus rd iwoZor twfu;j gkbZLdwy ds iz/kkuk/;kid dk osru feyrk jgsxkA^^ The petitioner has already made a representation in this regard. But no orders have been passed on the representation of the petitioner. D.I.O.S. is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the rules framed under the Intermediate Education Act. The representation shall be considered by the D.I.O.S. as well as by the Authorised Controller in view of the Government Order dated 13th January 2003 as well as appointment letter issued by the D.I.O.S. in favour of the petitioner on 18.10.2003. If the petitioner is eligible and qualifies for the said post, the same may be considered in accordance with the law. Subject to the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. 17.12.2003 (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Gur