- (1.) Hindu National School Management Trust Society a society registered under the Indian Societies Registration Act runs Hindu National Inter College Dehradun, which is recognised by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Petitioner No. 2 is the Committee of Management constituted for managing and conducting the affairs of the College. Trilok Chand Sharma, Respondent No. 3, was a teacher in College. By a resolution dated 26-4-1976 the Committee of Management suspended Respondent No. 3 and constituted a sub-committee consisting of the president, vice-president and a member of the Committee to enquire into the charges. The sub-committee framed charges against Respondent No. 3 and served it on him on 12-5-1976 who submitted his reply to the charges on 30-5-1976 and a supplementary reply on 14-6-1976. The sub-committee submitted its report on 24-6-1976 holding that the charges had been established against Respondent No. 3. The Committee of Management thereafter passed a resolution on 29-6-1976 approving the report of the sub-committee and decided to dismiss Respondent No. 3 from service with effect from 26-4-1976. Papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval as contemplated by Section 16-G (3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The District Inspector of Schools granted the necessary approval on 20-10-1976. Thereafter the Committee of Management on 31-10-1976 passed an order dismissing Respondent No. 3 from service with effect from 26-4-1976. Respondent No. 3 challenged that order in appeal before the Regional Deputy Director of Education who allowed the appeal by his order dated 24-12-1977 on the grounds (1) that in the meeting of the Committee of Management held on 31-10-1976, which resolved to dismiss Respondent No. 3 from service, two teachers, who were ex-officio members, were not present and in their place two other teachers attended the meeting; and (2) that only the Principal or Manager of the College could be appointed to conduct the enquiry into the charges against Respondent No. 3 and it could not be entrusted to a sub-committee in view of Regulation 35 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act which was mandatory. The Petitioners have challenged the legality of that order.
(2.) The petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench. The Bench felt doubt about the correctness of the rule laid down in R.P. Dixit v. Managing Committee,1971 AllLJ 896 which formed the basis of the decision of the Regional Deputy Director of Education that Regulation 35 is mandatory and must be strictly complied with. On a reference made by the Division Bench the petition has been placed before this Bench for decision.
(3.) Before dealing with the question whether Regulation 35 is mandatory or directory in nature we may deal with the other ground which weighed with the Regional Deputy Director of Education to set aside the order of dismissal of Respondent No. 3. The validity of the meeting held on 31-10-1976 was assailed on the ground that two teachers, who were ex-officio members were not present and in their place two other teachers attended the meeting. This meeting was held in pursuance of Regulation 45 of Chapter III of the Regulation which provides that the Committee shall implement the decisions of the Inspector or Regional Inspectress within two weeks of its intimation. According to Respondent No. 3 Sri R.C. Goel and Sri Suresh Singh Suryawansi, two teachers of the institution, were elected ex-officio members of the Committee on 3-2-1976 for a period of one year. They were not invited and in their place Sri Kailash Chandra and Sri Ravindra Kukreti were invited to attend the meeting which rendered the deliberations of the meeting illegal. The stand taken by the Petitioners was that the term of the two teachers, who were earlier ex-officio members of the Committee of Management, had expired and the two teachers, who did attend the meeting on that date were those who had been co-opted as ex-officio members of the Committee of Management. It was asserted that this point was raised before the Regional Deputy Director of Education but he ignored to give any finding on it The controversy on the question whether the term of Sri R.C. Goel and Sri Suresh Singh had come to an end or not and whether Sri Kailash Chandra and Sri Ravindra Kukreti had been validly co-opted in their place is not of much significance. As noted earlier, the meeting of 31-10-1976 was held in pursuance of Regulation 45. In that meeting no decision was to be taken. It was solely for the purpose of implementing the earlier decision which had been approved by the District Inspector of Schools. It has been disputed that the quorum at the meeting was complete and it was unanimously resolved to implement the earlier decision dismissing Respondent No. 3 from service. Two representatives of the teachers did attend the meeting. Since no fresh decision was to be taken at this meeting, even assuming that irregularity was committed in not inviting Sri R.C. Goel and Sri Suresh Singh to the meeting it would not invalidate the proceedings of the meeting. In any case no prejudice was caused to Respondent No. 3 by the alleged irregularity.;