S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) SARASWATI Vidyalaya Inter College, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the College) is recognised and non -Government Intermediate College managed by the Committee of Management constituted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration approved under Section 16A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (briefly called the Act). The petitioner was appointed as Science Teacher in L.T. Grade in the College, on which post he was confirmed on 17 -8 -1972. By an order dated 6 -9 -1982 he was placed under suspension followed by an enquiry into the charges levelled against him, vide charge -sheet served upon him on 20 -9 -1982. The Enquiry Committee recommended dismissal of the petitioner from service with effect from the date of his suspension. The District Inspector of Schools, however, approved termination of the petitioner's services, vide order dated 8 -4 -1983. Thereafter the Committee of Management purporting to act on the basis of the aforesaid order of the District Inspector of Schools terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of his suspension i.e., 6 -9 -1982. The petitioner challenged the order of approval and consequential order of termination from service in appeal under Section 16G(3)(c) of the Act. The Regional Deputy Director of Education dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 2 -8 -1984. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in this court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13054 of 1984, which was allowed on the ground that the termination of service with effect from a date prior to the approval, was hit by Section 16G(3)(a) of the Act. The High Court, however, held that but for the defect of termination of service from a date prior to date of approval, disciplinary proceedings including the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education did not suffer from any defects. The High Court also made it clear in its order dated 8 -1 -1985 that the petitioner's services could be terminated afresh by the Committee of Management on the basis of the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools, which had been confirmed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in appeal. On the basis of the High Court's order dated 8 -1 -1985, the Committee of Management of the College passed another resolution on 6 -2 -1985 taking a decision therein to terminate the services of the petitioner with effect from 9 -3 -1984 i.e., to say a day after the proposal of the Committee of Management for termination of the petitioner's services was approved by the District Inspector of Schools and the management accordingly informed the petitioner, vide letter dated 6 -2 -1985, which is sought to be quashed in this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Committee of Management. The only contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner before me was that the order terminating the petitioner's services with retrospective effect was not permissible under law. According to him, the order contained in the letter dated 6 -2 -1985 terminating the petitioner's services with effect from 9 -4 -1983 can at the best be effective and operative from the date of issuance of the order viz. 6 -2 -1985 and not from a date anterior to the order of termination. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz, Jeeva Ratnam v. State of Madras, 1966 (14) FLR 285 (SC) and G.M.D. Corporation v. P.H. Brahm Bhatt : AIR 1974 SC 136. The learned counsel for the respondent contended before me that the proposal of the Committee of Management for terminating the services of the petitioner having been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 8 -4 -1983 and the approval having been upheld by the Regional Deputy Director of Education as well as by this Court, termination of the petitioner's services with effect from the date one day after the date of approval was permissible, as what is prohibited by Section 16G(3)(a) of the Act is, that no teacher shall be terminated from service except with the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools.
(3.) IN the case of Jeeva Ratnam (supra), the appellant Jeeva Ratnam was dismissed from service with effect from May 20, 1949, vide order dated October 17, 1950. The dismissal was challenged by means of a suit, which was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial court was affirmed on appeal by the High Court of Madras. In the appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave, it was urged that dismissal with retrospective effect was bad. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and observed as below: An order of dismissal with retrospective effect is, in substance, an order of dismissal as from the date of the order with the super -added direction that the order should operate retrospectively as from an anterior date. The two parts of the order are clearly severable. Assuming that the second part of the order is invalid, there is no reason why the first part of the order should not be given fullest effect. The Court cannot pass a new order of dismissal, but surely it can give effect to the valid and severable part of the order.;