High Court · 2012

caused on the post of Principal. It is admitted to the parties that on 30th June 2012, petitioner Nannhe Lal was the senior most lecturer working in the institution. He, however, lacked four years teaching experience required for appointment to the post of Principal. Apparently, the doctrine of necessity was pressed into service and Nannhe Lal was appointed as officiating Principal. Having worked for some time, the other petitioner i.e. Rajiv Kumar, was transferred to the aforesaid institution vide order dated 31.08.2012 and he joined the institution on 05.09.2012. Rajiv Kumar possessed the educational qualification required for appointment to the post of Principal and also had four years teaching experience.

3. It transpires that Rajiv Kumar approached the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.I.O.S.’) stating that since he is eligible to be appointed as Principal, therefore, he be appointed as officiating Principal of the institution. This plea of the Rajiv Kumar was accepted by the D.I.O.S., who passed an order on 15.07.2014 appointing Rajiv Kumar as Principal. It is this order which came to be challenged by the petitioner Nannhe Lal. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39469 of 2014, an interim protection was granted and he was allowed to continue. It appears that the interim order granted in favour of Nannhe Lal was for a limited period and was not extended. Despite expiry of the term of interim order passed in the writ petition of Nannhe Lal, the other writ petitioner, Rajiv Kumar was not allowed to join, as such, he too approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 12675 of 2024. Both the writ petitions have been heard together and disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide composite judgment dated 24.09.2024.

4. The Writ Petition No. 39469 of 2014 has been dismissed, while a direction has been issued in Writ-A No. 12675 of 2024 for allowing Rajiv Kumar to function as Principal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Nannhe Lal has preferred the present appeal.

5. Shri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, argues that Rajiv Kumar was not born in the cadre when the post of Principal had fallen vacant, therefore, he could not have been appointed as officiating Principal. It is also submitted that the doctrine of necessity, if it is to be pressed in service, the same shall come to the rescue of appellant Nannhe Lal, since during the pendency of the writ petition, he had obtained teaching experience of four years and, therefore, being senior, he is otherwise entitled to continue.

6. The aforesaid submission is opposed by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Rajiv Kumar.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

8. Admittedly, when the vacancy arose on the post of Principal on 30th June 2012, Nannhe Lal was the senior most lecturer who had the educational qualification required for the post of Principal. However, in terms of provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982, he lacked the requisite teaching experience required for the post of Principal. The appointment of Nannhe Lal as officiating Principal was based on account of necessity since no one with the requisite qualification for appointment was available. After Rajiv Kumar joined the institution, he laid claim for appointment to the post of Principal on officiating basis since he possessed the qualifications, including the teaching experience. It is on his representation that the D.I.O.S. passed the order dated 15.07.2014 directing Rajiv Kumar to officiate as Principal.

9. The cause of action for Nannhe Lal arose on 15.07.2014 when the order was passed by the D.I.O.S. in favour of Rajiv Kumar permitting him to officiate as Principal. On 15.07.2014, Nanhe Lal did not possess the requisite teaching experience, which was a part of the eligibility required for appointment to the post of Principal.

10. Between the claim of Nannhe Lal and Rajiv Kumar, the D.I.O.S. has given preference to Rajiv Kumar since he did possess the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Principal.

11. Learned Single Judge has taken the view that a candidate having requisite qualification for the post is entitled to be given preference over Nannhe Lal, who lacked such eligibility though he was senior to Rajiv Kumar.

12. In the matter of officiating arrangement, the authorities must give preference to someone who possesses the requisite qualification for the post. The D.I.O.S., in such circumstances, rightly accepted the claim of Rajiv Kumar as he possessed the requisite eligibility. The argument that Rajiv Kumar was not born in the cadre would not hold good in matters of officiating arrangement when none otherwise possessed the eligibility on the date when the substantive vacancy had come into existence.

13. In that view of matter, we find ourselves to be in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition of Nannhe Lal and allowing that of Rajiv Kumar.

14. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 K.Tiwari KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

caused on the post of Principal. It is admitted to the parties that on 30th June 2012, petitioner Nannhe Lal was the senior most lecturer working in the institution. He, however, lacked four years teaching experience required for appointment to the post of Principal. Apparently, the doctrine of necessity was pressed into service and Nannhe Lal was appointed as officiating Principal. Having worked for some time, the other petitioner i.e. Rajiv Kumar, was transferred to the aforesaid institution vide order dated 31.08.2012 and he joined the institution on 05.09.2012. Rajiv Kumar possessed the educational qualification required for appointment to the post of Principal and also had four years teaching experience.

3. It transpires that Rajiv Kumar approached the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.I.O.S.’) stating that since he is eligible to be appointed as Principal, therefore, he be appointed as officiating Principal of the institution. This plea of the Rajiv Kumar was accepted by the D.I.O.S., who passed an order on 15.07.2014 appointing Rajiv Kumar as Principal. It is this order which came to be challenged by the petitioner Nannhe Lal. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39469 of 2014, an interim protection was granted and he was allowed to continue. It appears that the interim order granted in favour of Nannhe Lal was for a limited period and was not extended. Despite expiry of the term of interim order passed in the writ petition of Nannhe Lal, the other writ petitioner, Rajiv Kumar was not allowed to join, as such, he too approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 12675 of 2024. Both the writ petitions have been heard together and disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide composite judgment dated 24.09.2024.

4. The Writ Petition No. 39469 of 2014 has been dismissed, while a direction has been issued in Writ-A No. 12675 of 2024 for allowing Rajiv Kumar to function as Principal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Nannhe Lal has preferred the present appeal.

5. Shri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, argues that Rajiv Kumar was not born in the cadre when the post of Principal had fallen vacant, therefore, he could not have been appointed as officiating Principal. It is also submitted that the doctrine of necessity, if it is to be pressed in service, the same shall come to the rescue of appellant Nannhe Lal, since during the pendency of the writ petition, he had obtained teaching experience of four years and, therefore, being senior, he is otherwise entitled to continue.

6. The aforesaid submission is opposed by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Rajiv Kumar.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

8. Admittedly, when the vacancy arose on the post of Principal on 30th June 2012, Nannhe Lal was the senior most lecturer who had the educational qualification required for the post of Principal. However, in terms of provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982, he lacked the requisite teaching experience required for the post of Principal. The appointment of Nannhe Lal as officiating Principal was based on account of necessity since no one with the requisite qualification for appointment was available. After Rajiv Kumar joined the institution, he laid claim for appointment to the post of Principal on officiating basis since he possessed the qualifications, including the teaching experience. It is on his representation that the D.I.O.S. passed the order dated 15.07.2014 directing Rajiv Kumar to officiate as Principal.

9. The cause of action for Nannhe Lal arose on 15.07.2014 when the order was passed by the D.I.O.S. in favour of Rajiv Kumar permitting him to officiate as Principal. On 15.07.2014, Nanhe Lal did not possess the requisite teaching experience, which was a part of the eligibility required for appointment to the post of Principal.

10. Between the claim of Nannhe Lal and Rajiv Kumar, the D.I.O.S. has given preference to Rajiv Kumar since he did possess the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Principal.

11. Learned Single Judge has taken the view that a candidate having requisite qualification for the post is entitled to be given preference over Nannhe Lal, who lacked such eligibility though he was senior to Rajiv Kumar.

12. In the matter of officiating arrangement, the authorities must give preference to someone who possesses the requisite qualification for the post. The D.I.O.S., in such circumstances, rightly accepted the claim of Rajiv Kumar as he possessed the requisite eligibility. The argument that Rajiv Kumar was not born in the cadre would not hold good in matters of officiating arrangement when none otherwise possessed the eligibility on the date when the substantive vacancy had come into existence.

13. In that view of matter, we find ourselves to be in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition of Nannhe Lal and allowing that of Rajiv Kumar.

14. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 K.Tiwari KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad