Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 70588 of 2005 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Yadav And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.D. Shukla,Ashok Khare Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Dinesh Kakkar,Rahul Jain Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Matter is taken in the revised cause list.
None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Heard Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the official respondents.
Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the
Institution known as Bhartiya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Rajawari
District Gorakhpur (hereinabove referred to as the Institution) governed by
the provisions as provided under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) in which the the petitioner No. 1 (Sri Ram
Chandra Yadav) at the time to filing of the present petition was working on
the post of L.T. Grade Teacher, petitioner No. 2 (Rama Shankar Pathak) on
the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary Section) and petitioner No. 3 (Sri Ram
Prasad Upadhyaya) on the post of officiating Principal at the time of filing of
the the present writ petition and main prayer as prayed by them is as under:-
“1. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision
taken by the Regional Level Committee dated 28.7.2005 (Annexure No. 17 to
the writ petition).
2. a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents
to remove the irregularities by appointing an independent authority as
Authorised Controller to conduct an enquiry and to take a decision in
pursuance thereof.”
He further submits that during the pendency of present writ petition Sri Ram
Chandra Yadav (petitioner No. 1) had retired from service after the attaining
the age of superannuation.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner have neither
any right or locus to file the present writ petition thereby claiming the
abvoesaid reliefs, as they have no right to challenge the election of the
Committee of Management and appointment of authorized Controller.
It is further submitted by learned counsel that during the pendency of the writ
petition the tenure of the Committee of the Management has expired and in
support of his argument he rely on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Association of Teachers and other Staff and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. 2006 (6) ALJ (NOC) 1276 (ALL.).
I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, learned
Standing Counsel and perused the record.
Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners at the time of filing of the writ
petition are working in different capacity in the Institution i.e. L.T. Grade
Teacher, Assistant Teacher (Primary Section) and Officiating Principal, thus
they have no right or locus to claim the relief as claimed by them by means of
the instant writ petition in view of the facts and pleadings as made by them in
the writ petition. Accordingly, they are not entitled for any relief by this Court
while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Further in the case of Association of Teachers and other Staff and Anr.
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2006 (6) ALJ (NOC) 1276 (ALL.) this
Court has held that teachers and employees of institutions governed by U.P.
Intermediate Education Act and who are under direct control of committee of
Management, cannot file writ petition for supersending management. Any
dispute or cause of action in matter of service arisen on account of decision
taken by management if illegal, Teachers and Employees may challenge
before appropriate authority or Court in accordance with law.
For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.7.2010
Ravi/-