Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124366-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 651 of 2025 Appellant :- Vinod Kumar, Lecturer In Govardhan Inter College And Another Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Naresh Chandra Tripathi,Suchita Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Tiwari Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri N.C. Tripathi and Ms. Suchita Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The instant appeal is directed against an interim order dated 19.06.2025 passed in Writ-A No.8499 of 2025 (Maulabi Ram Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) filed by respondent No.4. In the writ petition, respondent No.4 has challenged the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2/District Inspector of Schools, whereby the charge of officiating Principal of the College was directed to be handed over to appellant No.1 herein being the senior- most teacher. 3. Learned Single Judge has considered the submission made on behalf of respondent No.4 to the effect that appellant No.1, though senior-most teacher, had earlier, declined to work as officiating Principal. The order impugned in the writ petition was passed without considering the said aspect. 4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the said factual issue was raised by respondent No.4 herein for the first time before the learned Single Judge. It is urged that there was no evidence before the District Inspector of Schools to arrive at the said conclusion. He further submits that the letter dated 14.01.2022, purportedly written by the petitioner to forgo his right to work as officiating Principal, is in fact a forged document. 5. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, on the other hand, submits that appellant no.1 had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.7872 of 2021, which was ultimately got dismissed as withdrawn. It is urged that this fact itself indicates that the appellant No.1 had no objection to the continuance of respondent No.4 as officiating Principal. 6. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the relevant time, appellant No.1 was under suspension, therefore the writ petition was withdrawn. However it would not mean that appellant No.1 has relinquished his right to be appointed as officiating principal for all times to come. 7. It is vehemently submitted by Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the appellants that issue relating to the appellant having given up his right to officiate as the senior-most teacher in the institution has never been decided by any authority so far and without deciding this aspect, respondent No.4 could not have been permitted to work as officiating Principal. He also submits that as there is a specific challenge to the letter by which, the appellant No.1 is stated to have shown unwillingness to officiate, it would require a factual inquiry, therefore he has no objection, in case, the order impugned in the writ petition dated 23.05.2025 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the District Inspector of Schools for consideration of the said factual aspect and the status, as in existence before passing of the order dated 23.05.2025 is permitted to continue. 8. Although initially Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, objected to the said course, but subsequently, he agreed as respondent No.4 has himself subjected the order to challenge, by which the charge has been directed to be given to appellant No.1 herein on the ground that he had given up his right to officiate. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 passed in the writ petition, is hereby quashed. As a result, the writ petition stands allowed. 10. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to decide the issue within six weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. The status quo, as was presently before passing of the impugned order, shall remain in operation, till decision is taken by the District Inspector of Schools. It is clarified that, in case any of the parties delay disposal of the matter, it shall be open to the District Inspector of Schools to proceed to hear the matter ex parte and take a decision. 11. Instant appeal stands disposed of in above terms. (R.M.N.Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 28.7.2025/Amit Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad