K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) RADHEY Ram Sharma, Petitioner no. 1, was selected for appointment to the post of Principal of Gandhi Adarsh Inter College, Labadi, district Etawah, and the Selection Committee sent its proposal to the Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad, for approval. The Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 12th December, 1973, refused to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner no. 1. Aggrieved RADHEY Ram Sharma as well as the Managing Committee of the College through its Manager Sri Ishwar Chandra Tewari filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of the Deputy Director of Education.
(2.) THE Deputy Director of Education refused to grant approval merely on the ground that since there was dispute amongst the members of the Committee of Management, the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of selecting the principal was not in accordance with rules, as such no approval could be granted to the recommendations of the Selection Committee for appointment of Radhey Ram Sharma, petitioner no. 1, as Principal of the College. No other reason was stated by the Deputy Director of Education in refusing the approval. Section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act makes provision for appointment of teachers, sub-Section (3) makes provision for constitution of a Selection Committee of three members for selection of Principal. The Committee is required to include as member a person not belonging to the district in which the institution is located, selected by the Committee of Management out of the regional panel referred to in sub-Section (4). The constitution of the Selection Committee and the procedure for the conduct of business at the meeting is regulated by Regulations. Regulations 1 to 18 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act contain provisions of constitution of Selection Committee and the procedure to be followed by the Committee for transacting its business. Regulation 13 read with regulation 9 lays down that the Committee including its Chairman shall be Management on an ad hoc basis for each selection for the post of Principal. The Manager shall get the list of members of the regional panel from the Regional Deputy Director, submit it to the Committee of Management for selecting a member, obtain the consent of the latter to sit on the Selection Committee and arrange for the selection. Regulations 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12 lay down procedure which is required to be followed by the Selection Committee. After the selection is held, the Chairman of the Selection Committee is required to send the names of the selected candidates and two others in the waiting list drawn up in order of merit to the Deputy Director of Education for approval. There is no dispute between the parties that the Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The Selection Committee selected the petitioner No. 1 and made recommendations in his favour for appointment as Principal and forwarded the papers to the Deputy Director of Education for approval. There is no dispute that petitioner No. 1 fulfilled the qualifications prescribed for appointment of a principal. The Deputy Director, however, refused to grant approval merely on the ground that there was dispute among the members of the Committee of Management, there fore no approval could be granted to the appointment of the petitioner who was selected by a Selection Committee constituted by rival members. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Chairman of the Selection Committee had made recommendations and submitted relevant papers to the Deputy Director of Education on 11th August, 1973. The Deputy Director required certain additional information from the management which was supplied on 1st October, 1973, but even thereafter the Deputy Director of Education did not pass any order and two weeks were allowed to expire. It is urged that since the proposal of the Chairman of the Selection Committee was submitted on 1st October, 1973, it stood approved automatically on the expiry of two weeks, as such the order dated 12th December, 1973, disapproving the appointment of petitioner No. 1 was of no consequence. Section 16-F of the Intermediate Education Act lays down that no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or teacher in a recognised institution unless he fulfilled the conditions enumerated in that section. Sub-Section (2) requires that the name of the selected candidate shall be forwarded for approval in the case of Principal or Headmaster to the Regional Deputy Director of Education along with a statement showing the names, qualifications and other particulars of all the candidates who may have applied for selection. The subsection further lays down that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall give his decision within two weeks of the receipt of the relevent papers failing which approval shall be deemed to have been accorded. These provisions make it amply clear that no person shall be appointed as Principal unless his selection or appointment is approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. In order to avoid delay in according approval the Deputy Director of Education is required to give his decision within two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers. In case the Deputy Director fails to approve or disapprove the appointment within that period, a legal fiction is created in favour of the candidate, that on expiry of the period of two weeks the approval shall be deemed to have been granted.
(3.) THE question then arises as to whether in the instant case, the Deputy Director of Education passed the order within two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers. THE date on which the Deputy Director of Education received the relevant papers is disputed by the parties. According to the respondents the relevant papers were never received by the Deputy Director of Education, whereas according to the petitioners the relevant papers had been received by the Deputy Director of Education on 1st October, 1973. Admittedly, the Deputy Director of Education received all the papers on 21st November, 1973, but he failed to pass any orders within two weeks even thereafter. THE order dated 12th December, 1973 was passed after the expiry of two weeks. On a perusal of the affidavits filed by the parties, it is clear that the Chairman of the Selection Committee submitted paper to the Deputy Director of Education on 11th August, 1973.. By his letter dated 24th August, 1973, (Annexure 2 to the petition) the Deputy Director of Education asked for certain information from the Chairman of the Selection Committee. THE Deputy Director of Education required a certificate to the effect that there was no dispute between the Committee of Management. THE Chairman of the Selection Committee by his letter dated 1st October, 1973 (Annexure 3 to the petition) submitted necessary information to the Deputy Director of Education. THE Deputy Director of Education, however, insisted that a certificate should be obtained from the District Inspector of School to the effect that there was no dispute in the Committee of Management. In that connection he sent a letter on 20th October, 1973, to the Chairman of the Selection Committee directing him to contact the District Inspector of Schools and to get requisite certificate sent to his office. On 3rd November, 1973, the Chairman of the Selection Committee addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of Education informing him that the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, told him that he had already sent a letter directly to the Deputy Director of Education. THE Deputy Director of Education had himself asked the District Inspector of Schools to send the certificate and in pursuance of that direction the District Inspector of Schools submitted a detailed report to the Deputy Director under his letter which was personally handed over to the Deputy Director of Education at some meeting held at Fatehpur. This is clear on the perusal of the letter dated 6th November, 1973 (Annexure 6 to the petition) and the letter dated 6th November, 1973, from the District Inspector of Schools addressed to the Deputy Director of Education, a copy of this letter was forwarded to the Chairman of the Selection Committee also. It further appears that the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 6th November, 1973, was either misplaced or was not taken into account by the Deputy Director of Education. THE Deputy Director of Education sent another letter to the District Inspector of Schools on 13th November, 1973, directing him to submit the requisite certificate. THE District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 19th November, 1,973, (Annexure A to the counter affidavit of Lekhraj Sharma) informed the Deputy Director of Education that he had already submitted his detailed report by his letter dated 20th September, 1973, and he annexed a copy of that letter also which is annexure B to the counter-affidavit. THE letter of the District Inspector of Schools was received in the office of the Deputy Director of Education on 21st November, 1973. In his letter dated 20th September, 1973, the District Inspector of Schools had observed that no doubt there was dispute among the members of the Committee of Management, one group was led by Sri Ishwar Chandra Tewari while the other group was led by Sri Fateh Chand Dixit who claimed himself to be manager. But under the orders passed by the High Court the Education Department had recognised Ishwar Chandra Tewari as Manager, he was given grant-in-aid, and he was carrying on the administration of the College. In the circumstances, he recommended that since there was necessity for having a permanent principal it would be just and proper that the selection held by the Managing Committee led by Sri Tewari should be accepted. THE District Inspector of Schools further enclosed the opinion of the District Government Counsel who had also advised that Sri Ishwar Chand Tewari was entitled to function as Manager and the Department should recognise him as such. These documents and the facts stated in the affidavits clearly show that the requisite certificate relating to dispute in the Managing Committee had been received by the Deputy Director of Education at least on 21st November, 1973. He had jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the selection within two weeks from that date. Since the Deputy Director of Education did not pass any order disapproving the proposal, the recommendation made by the Chairman of the Selection Committee stood automatically approved on the expiry of two weeks from 21st November, 1973. Thereafter the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to disapprove the selection and appointment of Radhey Ram Sharma. The Committee of management was within its jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner as principal of the College. The order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 12th October, 1973, was of no consequence and it could not legally affect the right of petitioner No. 1 to function as principal of the College. In Special Appeal No. 1023 of 1969 decided on 25th April, 1973, a Division Bench of this Court took the view that if the Deputy Director fails to take decision within two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers the selection would automatically stand approved and any order passed thereafter by the Deputy Director is of no consequence. The law laid down by the Division Bench is fully applicable to the present- case. I am therefore of the opinion that the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 12th October, 1973, was without jurisdiction.;