LexBHOLANATH MUKHERJEE & ORS. versus R.K. MISSION V. CENTENARY COLLEGE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 5 S.C.R. 416 BHOLANATH MUKHERJEE & ORS. v. R.K. MISSION V. CENTENARY COLLEGE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2457 of 2006) APRIL 18, 2011 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Service law: Appointment - Appointment of respondent No. 3, a monk as Principal of Missionary College - Challenged by appellants-teachers in the College - On the ground that respondent no.3 was junior to them and did not possess the 0 requisite qualifications - Writ Petition allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court - However, dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court - On appeal held: Litigation in the instant case does not survive as the appellants have retired - Even if the writ petition is allowed and the appointment of E respondent No. 3 is declared null and void, none of the appellants could be appointed on the post of Principal - By the retirement of all the appellants the issues raised have been rendered academic - More so, no interim relief was granted by the High Court or Supreme Court restraining respondent No. 3 from performing the functions of a Principal F - By now respondent No. 3 has acquired the requisite experience for the post of principal - Instant dispute is a pure and simple service dispute - Merely because the writ petitioners are senior most teachers in the same institution, would not necessarily give rise to the presumption, that they G had filed the writ petition in public interest - Also, the submission that the writ petition can be treated as a writ in the nature of a quo warranto cannot be accepted - Appellants did not claim a writ of quo warranto either before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the High Court - The said H 416 BHOLANATH MUKHERJEE v. R.K. MISSION V. 417 CENTENARY COLLEGE submission was made as a weapon of last resort - A Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226. Appellants-teachers in respondent No. 1 College, filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent no. 3, a monk at RK Mission as principal of 8 respondent No. 1 College on the ground that he was. junior to the appellants and did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post of principal as laid down in the Government Order. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the appointment of C the Principal was not made under the provisions of the West Bengal Act of 1975, West Bengal Act of 1978 and the Calcutta University First Statute, 1979. The Governing Body of the College was directed to take steps to fill the post either temporarily or permanently in accordance with laws in force. Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 College filed D an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and the same was allowed. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant.appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is much substance in the submissions that at this stage, litigation in the instant case does not survive as the appellants have retired. Even E if the writ petition is allowed and the appointment of F respondent No.3 is declared null and void, none of the appellants could be appointed on the post of Principal. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition before the High Court would show that the gravamen of the grievances of the writ petitioners/appellants was that G they were all senior to respondent No. 3; that he had only six years of teaching experience, while G.O. No. 149- Edn(CP) dated 22nd Fe.bruary, 1994 prescribes a minimum teaching experience of sixteen years with administrative experience; that on the one hand, H 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. A respondent No.3 did not possess the necessary experience and was appointed as the Principal, and on the other hand, the applications of the petitioner Nos. 1, 9 and 12 for the post of Principal made through appropriate channel were not at all considered at any B stage by the appropriate authority, though they were more qualified and senior to respondent No. 3; that the petitioners are suffering irreparable loss in the form of deprivation from being promoted as a Teacher-in-Charge and compelled to serve under a junior in service and C possessing lesser qualifications; that respondent No. 3 is junior to all the petitioners; that 'BK' was the then petitioner No. 1 and the then senior most Teacher who had put in more than three decades of lawful and approved service to the Institution
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.