COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, ADARSH INTER COLLEGE MANIKPUR Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, HIGHER SECONDARY, U.P. LUCKNOW AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, ADARSHA INTER COLLEGE, MANIKPUR
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
Referred Judgements :-
OF PUNJAB V/S. JAGDISH SINGH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)On a motion made by the Committee of Management Adarsh Inter College, Manikpur through its Authorised Controller, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, this Court issued rule nisi requiring the Director of Education, U. P. respondent 1 and the District Inspector of Schools, Banda, respondent 2 to show cause why a writ of certiorari may not be issued quashing the orders of respondent 2 dated June 5, 1979 and June 29,1979. They were further required to show cause why a writ of mandamus may not be issued commanding the said respondents not to compel the petitioner to pay the salary of respondent 3.
(2.)The facts about which there is no controversy between the parties are that the last Committee of Management of the petitioner was elected on Sept. 13, 1970 and in accordance with the Scheme of Administration the term of the said Committee ended by efflux of time on Sept. 13, 1973. The post of a teacher was vacant at that time and a selection committee which had been constituted in accordance with the Regulations contained in Chap. II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act met on Sept. 15, 1973 and recommended respondent 3 to fill the said vacancy. Recommendation of the Selection Committee was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Banda, hereinafter referred to as the DIOS, by his order dated Oct. 18, 1973. On a complaint about alleged insubordination, negligence of duty and misconduct respondent 3 was suspended by the said Managing Committee on Sept. 16, 1976 the DIOS approved the orders of suspension by his order dated Oct. 12, 1976. In the meanwhile a charge sheet was submitted against respondent 3 by the same Committee of Management on Sept. 30,1976 to which a reply was submitted by the said respondent on Jan. 4, 1977. In his reply to the charge sheet respondent 3 stated that the Managing Committee which had been elected on 13-9-1970 had become functus officio and it was not competent to take any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer was thereafter appointed and he found that all the charges framed against respondent 3 had been duly proved. The Committee of Management which had been elected in the year 1970 passed a resolution dated Apr. 5, 1977 recommending the termination of respondent 3's services. There was some dispute amongst the members of the general body of the petitioner institution and three rival committees of the management had started laying claims to act as Committee of Management and on 4-11-1977 the State Govt, appointed an Authorised Controller to run the affairs of the institution under S. 16-D (4) of the Act. The DIOS by his order dated 15th Nov., 1977 refused to approve the resolution of the Committee of Management of 5-4-1977 on the ground that the Committee which had been elected on 13-9-1970 had become functus officio and was not competent to take any disciplinary proceedings against respondent 3. The Authorised Controller felt himself in a quandary on receiving the letter of the DIOS dated 15th Nov., 1977 and on Nov. 26, 1977 he sent a letter to the DIOS enquiring about the position of respondent 3 who had been appointed by the same Committee of Management after the expiry of its term. The DIOS replied to the said letter by his communication dated Dec. 1,1977 and in the said communication he only referred to his earlier letter dated Nov. 15, 1977 and refrained from giving any answer to the query which had been put to him by the Authorised Controller in his letter dated Nov. 26, 1977.
(3.)It is also not in controvery that the Authorised Controller after, receiving the communication of the District Inspector of Schools dated Dec. 1, 1977 passed an order dated Dec. 3, 1977. By means of the said order the Authorised Controller reinstated respondent 3 and asked him to reply to the charges which were contained in the charge sheet dated Sept. 30,1976. In response to the said order of the Authorised Controller respondent 3 submitted an explanation on Dec. 26, 1977. After perusal of the explanation submitted by respondent 3 the Authorised Controller addressed a communication to him asking him as to why his appointment may not be treated as invalid from its very inception. On the request made by respondent 3 the Authorised Controller gave a personal hearing to the respondent 3. In the meanwhile the officer who had been functioning as Authorised Controller was transferred and one Sri P. D. Sudhakar, I.A.S. succeeded him as Authorised Controller of the petitioner. Sri Sudhakar gave a second show cause notice to respondent 3 and asked him to reply to the charges contained in the charge sheet dated Sept. 30, 1976 within 15 days. The show cause notice was again replied to by respondent 3 on Dec. 6,1978. In his reply respondent 3 again maintained the position that the Committee of Management which had been elected on 13-9-1970 had no locus standi to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him after Sept. 13, 1973. On receipt of this reply Sri Sudhakar wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools seeking his permission to recall the appointment of respondent 3 which had also been made by Selection Committee after the expiry of the term of the Managing Committee elected in 1970. The District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated May 2, 1979 informed Sri Sudhakar, the then Authorised Controller of the petitioner, that the appointment of respondent 3 was invalid and illegal and as such the question of approving the termination of his services did not arise. On receipt of the letter of the DIOS dated May 2,1979 the Authorised Controller informed respondent 3 that his appointment has been held to be invalid and illegal by the DIOS by his order dated 2-5-1979 and as such he shall not be deemed to be in the service of the petitioner institution. On June 5,1979 the DIOS informed the Authorised Controller that the termination of the services of respondent 3 was illegal and invalid and as such could not be approved. This time the DIOS took the view that the service of respondent 3 could only be terminated in accordance with the provisions of law contained in S. 16-G, U. P. Intermediate Education Act, and the relevant Regulations. On receiving the letter of the DIOS the Authorised Controller informed him that all relevant proceedings under S. 16-G and the connected Regulations had been duly complied with and all the relevant papers had been submitted to him on which he had passed the order dated May 2, 1979. The DIOS by letter dated 29th June 1979 which was received in the office of the petitioner on July 9, 1979 informed the petitioner that the order dated 2-5-1979 is being recalled on the instructions of the Director of Education contained in his letter dated 2/3 June, 1979.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.