S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) Premlal Singhania Kanya Inter College, Siswa Bazar, Mahrajganj is a recognised Intermediate College, the affairs of which are husbanded by the Committee of Management constituted under and in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 (In short the 'Act'). Though recognised under the Act, the college has not yet been brought within the purview of the U. P. High School and Intermediate (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 and recognition accorded to the Institution is sans financial aid (Vityavihin). The posts of teachers including Principal have not yet been sanctioned and the management has to fend on its own resources for payment of salary to teachers who. It would appear, have been appointed under Section 7AA of the Act. One of the conditions for recognition as contained in the order dated 16.1.1997 is "Niyamanusar Ek Yogya Pradhancharya Kee Niyukta Kee Jaye". This condition in the recognition order being Annexure-1 to the supplementary-affidavit, may lead to an inference that the post of Principal should be deemed to have been created by order dated 16.1.1997 itself but in the absence of specific pleading and arguments in this regard, it would be but proper to forbear from expressing any opinion on this point.
(2.) The petitioner herein was appointed vide letter dated 29.6.1995, the Principal of the college to which the District Inspector of Schools accorded approval vide letter dated 21.6.1997 in the scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500 with effect from 1.7.1995 and attested the signatures of the petitioner as Principal of the Institution. It would transpire that a dispute surfaced in which the two rival committees locked horns, each claiming to be the validly elected Committee of Management. The matter escalated to the level of the Regional Joint Director of Education who by his order dated 19.1.2000 tilted the scale in favour of the Committee of Management of which Dr. Amar Chand Kediya was elected Manager. As a sequel to the said order, the signature of Dr. Amar Chand Kediya, as Manager of the Institution, came to be attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 20.1.2000 and on 21.1.2000, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner canvassed the validity of the order dated 21.1.2000 by means of Writ Petition No. 10660 of 2000. The said writ petition, it is alleged, was taken up on 8.3.2000 but the same was deferred to 9.3.2000 owing to the strike by lawyers of the High Court. It would appear that the petitioner preferred another writ petition being Writ No. 9268 of 2000 for appropriate direction interdicting the respondents therein from interfering with the working of the petitioner as Principal of the Institution. The writ petition came to be filed on the premises that the suspension of the petitioner having not been approved within 60 days, the order of suspension lapsed automatically in view of Section 16G (7) of the Act. The writ petition was finally disposed of by judgment and order dated 27.4.2000 (Annexure-8 to the petition). A question arose in the said writ petition as to "whether the petitioner's suspension would be approved or not"? The Court, inter alia, held : "It is also desirable that the District Inspector of Schools should pass an order one way or the other on his own discretion without being influenced by any observation made in this order after 31.5.2000 in order to enable the petitioner to conduct the examination as Centre Superintendent so that the examination may not be disturbed." It was made clear by the Court that "In case no order is passed by the District Inspector of Schools within one month from May 31, 2000 despite a certified copy of the judgment is produced before him within three weeks from date in that event it will be deemed that the suspension has not been approved by the District Inspector of Schools and deemed to have expired on the expiry of March 21, 2000". Before any order could be passed by the District Inspector of Schools pursuant to above directions of this Court, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide order dated 29.6.2000 pursuant to decision allegedly taken by the Committee of Management on 27.6.2000. However, as a sequel to the direction contained in the judgment dated 27.4.2000 of this Court, the District Inspector of Schools took up the matter and passed the order impugned herein holding that in financially unaided (Vityavihin) colleges, appointment of teachers and employees are although not required to be approved, the appointment being of part- time nature, yet the services of the part-time teachers are not liable to be terminated by the Management in arbitrary manner and in breach of the canons of natural Justice. The Management was held to be entitled to terminate the services of part-time teachers/employees but in accordance with the procedure established by law. The District Inspector of Schools by order impugned herein rejected the representation of the petitioner without testing the validity of the order terminating the services of the petitioner on the anvil of principles aforestated.
(3.) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare for the petitioner, standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri V.K. Shukla and Sri R. C. Dwivedi for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondents' counsel did not propose to file any counter-affidavit in the case and the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the motion hearing stage itself.;