IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.116 of 2008 Smt. Ranjana Chhettri ……… Appellant Versus District Inspector of Schools & Others ………. Respondents Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Date of Decision: 06.12.2010 Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) The respondents-school is run by the Cantonment Board. To supply certain vacancies in the posts of Lecturer, the School took steps to fill the same up by Direct Recruitment. It does not appear that the appellants, who were teachers of the school, responded to the said process of selection. Subsequent to the selection, they approached the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and contended that all the posts were not available for direct recruitment in terms of Regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921; some of them are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the existing teachers. The appellants in the said writ petition also challenged the appointment of a person who had been appointed by the School by taking recourse to direct recruitment. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court disposed of the writ petition by asking the District Inspector of Schools to look into the grievances of the appellants. The District Inspector of Schools looked into the grievances of the appellants and held by the order impugned in the writ petition, which has been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal, that the posts, in one of which the said gentlemen had been appointed, are available for promotees. It does not appear from the order of the District Inspector of Schools that before passing the said order, he had noticed the School or the said gentlemen, whose selection and appointment was interfered by the order of the District Inspector of Schools. Be that as it may, while the School refused to act in accordance with the said directions of the District Inspector of Schools, the person affected thereby approached this Court by filing a writ petition and succeeded by the judgment and order under 2 appeal. While rendering the judgment and order under appeal, the learned Single Judge held that inasmuch as the Cantonment Fund Servant Rules, 1937 framed under the Cantonment Board Act, prescribes that the posts of Lecturers are to be filled in by way of direct recruitment, the said provision, being a Central provision, should prevail upon Regulations 5 and 6 made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 by the State, since they are in conflict with the said mandate of the Central Statute. In the appeal preferred, no step has been taken to hold out that the said finding is not legally sustainable. No argument to that effect has also been made. It has only been contended that since in terms of Regulations 5 and 6 made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, 50 percent of the posts of Lecturers are to be supplied by promotees and since the school is obtaining grant-in-aid from the State, 50 percent of the posts of Lecturers of the Schools are to be supplied by promotees. 2. It is settled that when there is a conflict in between two operating laws, one made by the Central Government and other by the State under List 111 of 7th Schedule of the Constitution, the Central Law will prevail. That being a situation, there is no scope of interference. Furthermore, it was unjust and improper on the part of the appellants to approach the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and thereafter to pursue the matter after permitting the school to complete the recruitment. 3. Special appeal is dismissed accordingly. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 06.12.2010 Aswal/Rdang