Allahabad High Court Smt. Vijay Rani Wife Of Sri N.C. Jain, ... vs Regional Inspectress Of Girls Schools, ... on 27 November, 2006 JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.7.1999, dismissing the writ petition No. 7801 of 1989 of the PetitionerAppellant, the present appeal under the Rules of the Court has been preferred. 2. In brief, the case of the PetitionerAppellant is that she was appointed as Teacher (TGT Grade) on 1.7.1965, and in PGT Grade i.e. Lecturer's grade on 11.8.1980, in Kanya Vedic Inter College, Ghaziabad (in short 'College'). The erstwhile Principal Smt. Punya Kirti Sharma on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 30.6.1988 resulting in a substantive vacancy on the post of Principal in the College. It appears that some of the next senior most teachers namely Smt. Gayatri Bhatnagar, Urmila Goel and Swarn Lata Jain, declined to officiate as Principal. By order dated 29.6.1988, the Manager of the College directed the PetitionerAppellant to take charge of the office of officiating Principal with effect from 1.7.1988. Pursuant thereto, the PetitionerAppellant took over charge of the office of officiating Principal on 1.7.1988. The Manager vide letter dated 26.7.1988 (Annexure2 to the writ petition) informed the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools, Meerut (in short 'RIGS') about the retirement of erstwhile Principal on 30.6.1988 and that the charge has been taken over by the PetitionerAppellant. This letter of the Manager did not mention that the charge handed over to the PetitionerAppellant, was as officiating Principal or otherwise but only mentions about the factum of handing over charge to the PetitionerAppellant. Further the PetitionerAppellant, acting as Principal of the College, vide letter dated 6.8.1988, herself, informed the Manager, Central Bank of India, Ghazibad that now the College account shall be operated by her in place of the erstwhile Principal. Subsequently, RIGS directed the management vide order dated 29.3.1989 to permit senior most teacher to function as officiating Principal of the College and also conveyed her disapproval of PetitionerAppellant's functioning as Principal. It is this letter dated 29.3.1989, whereagainst the PetitionerAppellant preferred the aforesaid writ petition seeking following reliefs: 1. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter/order dated 29.3.1989 (AnnexureIV). 2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to let the petitioner to continue to function as principal so long as a regular appointment is not made by the Secondary Education Services Commission. 3. A writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the Case. 4. Award heavy costs of the petition to the petitioner. 3. In the meanwhile, it appears that RIGS passed two more orders dated 17th April 1989 and 28th April 1989 directing the Manager to promote respondent No. 3, the senior most teacher, as officiating principal and to send salary bills under her signatures. 4. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed following interim order dated 12.5.1989: Meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 29th March 1989 of respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be continued as Acting Principal of the College and paid her salary till a regular selected candidate by the Commission becomes available for appointment. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, PetitionerAppellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking addition of certain grounds and one prayer as 1(a) in the writ petition, whereby she sought writ of certiorari quashing RIGS's orders dated 17.4.1989 and 28.4.1989. This Court on 3rd may 1994 passed an order on the said application directing it to be listed with record but, thereafter, it appears that the PetitionerAppellant did not press this application, since no order allowing the aforesaid application has ever been passed. Hence, the said prayer has never been made part and parcel of the writ petition. Besides, it appears that vacancy on the post of officiating Principal of the College was also requisitioned to the Commission pursuant whereto vide order dated 15th April 1997, Commission selected and recommended Dr. Smt. Taruna Tyagi for appointment as Principal of the College. Consequently, the District Inspector of Schools issued letter dated 23rd January 1999 directing the management of the College to appoint Dr. Smt. Taruna Tyagi as Principal of the College in place of the PetitionerAppellant, who thence filed an impleadment application No. 15089 of 1999 seeking impleadment of Dr. Smt. Taruna Tyagi as Respondent No. 4. The facts stated in the said application shows that on 25th January, 1999, appointment letter was issued appoin