- (1.) V. M. Sahai, J. This Writ Petition has been filed by Committee of Manage ment. Faiz-e-Am Inter College. Nagla Mewati, Tajganj, Agra (in brief institu tion) and its manager challenging "the order dated 1-6-2000 passed by District Inspector of Schools setting aside the or ders dated 22-5-1997 and 19-7-1997 suspending and terminating respondent No. 2 Fauran Singh who was working as Principal of the institution since 1984.
(2.) THE institution was granted tem porary and permanent recognition as junior high school on 1-7-1984 and 13-8-1986 respectively. It was upgraded to high school on 5-12-1990. On 13- 3-1995 it was recognised as minority institution. It was upgraded to intermediate level by order dated 26-11-1996. But it did not receive any grant-in-aid from the Government. THE petitioners appointed an enquiry committee for holding preliminary en quiry against respondent No. 2 for misap propriation of Rs. 15,992/ -. THE Commit tee submitted its report on 15-5-1997. It was of the opinion that respondent No. 2 misappropriated a sum of Rs. 15,992/ -. In the meeting on 22-5-1997 the petitioners resolved to suspend the respondent No. 2 and appointed a committee to enquire into the charges. THE suspension order was challenged by respondent No. 2 by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22761 of 1997. This petition was dismissed on 16-7-1997 with observation that since the respondent No. 2 has made a repre sentation before District Inspector of Schools he may decide whether suspen sion of respondent No. 2 was in accord ance with Section 16-G (7) of U. P. Inter mediate Education Act as it was a recog nised institution. This judgment was served by the respondent No. 2 in the of fice of respondent No. 1. THE committee of management terminated the services of respondent No. 2by order dated 19-7- 1997 on the basis of the report of the enquiry committee. THE respondent no. 2 neither appeared nor filed any reply before the enquiry committee. He was found to have misappropriated sum of Rs. 15,992/ -. THE petitioner issued show- cause notice to the respondent No. 2 but since no reply was given nor he appeared, the services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated by order dated 19-7-1997. THE order was sent by the petitioners to respondent No. 1 for obtaining approval of the commis sion/board. Notice was issued by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner on 23- 8-1997 and 24-9-97 to which a letter was written by the petitioners on 26-9-1997. The respondent No. 1, who was hearing the matter was transferred and the incumbent to the of fice of respondent No. 1 fixed dates for hearing on 10-12- 1999,22-12-1999,18-1-2000 but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners. On 31-1- 2000 the petitioners filed their reply and next date for hearing was fixed for 25-2-2000. But the petitioners did not appear, therefore, the respondent No. 1 proceeded to decide the representation of the respondent No. 2 on the basis of the objections filed by the petitioners. He considered the validity of the orders dated 22-5-1997 and 19-7-1997 and held that the enquiry proceedings were carried out contrary to the principles of natural justice and no prior approval was obtained from the inspector before terminating the services of respondent No. 2 as provided by Section 16-G (3) (a) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. The orders dated 22- 5-1997 and 19-7-1997 were set aside and the respon dent Na 2 has been reinstated in service. It is this order dated 1-6-2000 passed by respondent No. 1 which has been challenged by the petitioners in this Writ Peti tion. I have heard Shri M. A. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respon dent No. 1.
(3.) THE main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the institution being a minority institution the provisions of Section 16 (G) (3) (a) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act did not apply. THE learned counsel further sub mitted that in any case the institution does not receive any grant-in-aid from the Government, therefore, the order terminat ing the services of respondent No. 2 became final and the District Inspector of Schools could not set-aside it. It was lastly urged that the District Inspector of Schools should have forwarded the termination order to commission/board for approval and he could not consider its validity. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners are devoid of any merit. In J. K. Kalra v. Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Meerut and others, 1996 (2) LBESR 1053 (AI1) (FB); 1996 (2) ESC 421 (All) (FB), it has been held by a Full Bench that the regulatory provisions regarding termination etc. under the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act apply to minority institutions as well. The learned counsel relied on a Division Bench decision in Committee of Management A. B. Vidhyalaya Inter College, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Shukla, 1999 (3) ESC 2139 (All) (DB); 2000 (1) LBESR 376 (All), and urged that the Full Bench decision was no longer good law in view to Apex Court decision in Yunus All Sha v. Mohd. Abdul Kalam and others, JT 1999 (3) SC 32. This argument is riot correct. The provisions in Orissa Education Act on which Supreme Court decision is based is different from U. P. Intermediate Education Act. In Commit tee of Management, St. Charles Inter Col lege, Sardhana, Meerut and another v. Dis trict Inspector of Schools, Meerut and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47795 of 2000 decided on 2-11-2000, it has been held that the Division Bench decision in Raj Kumar Shukla (supra) was4n per incuriam and principle laid down by Full Bench was not only correct but it was binding.;