Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5177 (UTT)

AMITA SAXENA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/548/2025 · 2025-08-27

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:7612 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 548/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate, for the respondent no. 5 and 6. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent no. 7. (2) Petitioner was serving as Principal in Arya Kanya Inter College, Rudrapur, which is receiving financial aid from the State Government only for Class 6 to 10 Standard and the said school is not receiving any aid for intermediate classes. She attained age of superannuation on 31.3.2025. According to her, the management of the school passed an order on 24.3.2025, asking her to continue serving as Principal till 31.3.2026 with the assurance that management will bear the expenses of paying salary to her. Petitioner is aggrieved by a letter dated 31.3.2025, issued by Kailash Chand Garg, Manager, School Management Committee of the concerned school. By the said letter, petitioner was asked to hand over charge of the O/o Principal to Ms. Pooja Chawdhary, who allegedly was appointed as acting Principal. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Kailash Chand Garg, who issued the letter on 31.3.2025 claiming to be the Manager of the School Management Committee, has no authority to issue such letter as his term as Manager 2025:UHC:7612 expired in the month of February, 2025 and thereafter authorised controller was appointed vide order dated 7.4.2025. (4) Mr. Sumit Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7, also submits that since authorised controller has been appointed, therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner should have been raised before the authorised controller. He further submits that intermediate classes are not aided by the State Government and management is bearing the expenses of running the intermediate classes out of its own resources. (5) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to approach the authorised controller by making a representation. If petitioner makes representation within ten days from today, authorised controller shall look into the matter and take decision, as per law, within two weeks thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 27.8.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d4625 03, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C6 7F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.08.27 18:27:20 +05'30' 2025:UHC:7612