- (1.) BY the Court.-This Appeal has been preferred by the Manager of a Committee of Management of D.A.V. Inter College, Tateri, Baghpat, which is an institution recognized and governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed there under.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the holding of office by the Appellant as Manager, who has been acknowledged as such upon the recognition granted to the elections of the Committee of Management by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 21.6.2010. THE objection taken by the respondent Nos.4 to 7 - petitioners before the learned single Judge while assailing the order of the District Inspector of Schools was that the appellant is ineligible to hold the office of Manager in view of the specific bar contained in Regulation 5 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. THE learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 21.6.2010. Hence this Appeal. The appellant contends that he is a Teacher of Mathematics in G.V.S. School, Dayalpur, Delhi, and is an employee of the said institution under the control of the State Government of Delhi and the Joint Director of Education, New Delhi. It is submitted that the aforesaid disqualification as prescribed under Regulation 5 of Chapter III will not apply to the appellant inasmuch as he is not a Teacher of any recognized institution within the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the operation of the 1921 Act can in no way prohibit the appellant from occupying the office of Manager of an institution within the State of Uttar Pradesh as he is a teacher within the territory of Delhi. In essence, the submission is that the operation of the aforesaid provision does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the State of U.P. and even otherwise holding of such an office of Manager within the State of U.P. is no misconduct under the relevant service Rules under which the appellant is employed. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ganguly contends that the learned single Judge has extended the said definition by adding words to it, inasmuch as holding an office of profit by itself is no disqualification for occupying the post of Manager and the Government servant Rules or any other rule of the State Government or the Central Government would not disqualify the appellant from contesting any such elections. It is urged that the learned single Judge has, therefore, committed an error by concluding that the appellant is holding an office of profit and, therefore, he is disqualified from functioning as a Manager of the institution which is admittedly an honorary post.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 contends that the fact that the appellant is working as a Teacher in the State of Delhi being not disputed, the appellant is disqualified as he is a Teacher within the meaning of the Regulations and, therefore, the order impugned does not deserve any interference. It is further contended that even otherwise the matter can be examined in terms of public policy as well that a Teacher should not be allowed to function as a Manager as he would not have time to devote himself to the institution. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the regulations do provide for prohibition and the matter can be examined by the Joint Director of Education, who is the Chairman of the Regional Level Committee in his supervisory jurisdiction and, therefore, no interference be made with the impugned judgment.;