G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) The appellant was selected by a Selection Committee of the Gochar Krishi Intermediate College, respondent No. 1, for the post of Demonstrator in Biology. His name was sent for approval to the District Inspector of Schools, pending approval the manager of the institution appointed the appellant to the post of the Demonstrator on August 25, 1969. The District Inspector of Schools gave his approval on October 1, 19 (.8. After about ten months the manager gave a notice to the appellant dated June 9, 1969 terminating his services. The appellant made a representation against this notice to the District Inspector of Schools on July 8. 1969. District Inspector of Schools sent the representation to the institution for its comments and explanation. Thereupon on August 10, 1967, the Committee of Management of the college passed a resolution approving the notice given by management wrote to the District Inspector of Schools asking for approval of the termination of the services of the appellant. the approval was granted on October 22, 1970. Against the order of approval the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Director. The appeal was allowed by the Deputy Director on January 4, 1971. The college then filed a Writ Petition in this court challenging the order of the Deputy Director. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the appointment of the appellant was made in violation of Regulation 16 of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Intermediate Education Act. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge this appeal has been filed.
(2.) Section 16-0(3) of the Intermediate Education Act prohibits the termination of the services of a teacher except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. In the present case the services of the appellant were purported to be terminated by the notice dated June 9, 1969, without obtaining the prior approval of the Inspector. We may mention that Section 16-G(3) applies to a probationer also as held by a Full Bench of this court in Managing Committee v. S. D. Gupta, 1974 ALJ p. 465. On the date of the termination the appellant was a probationer. Approval was sought on November 3. 1969, long after the notice of termination had been given. There can be no manner of doubt that the termination was in violation of the provisions of Section 16-G(3).
(3.) The learned Single Judge has held that the appointment of the appellant was illegal and, therefore, he could not be treated as a teacher of the college and no question of approval really arose before his services were terminated. We have already mentioned that a Selection Committee was set up for selecting a Demonstrator in Biology and the Selection Committee selected the appellant. The name of the appellant was sent for approval to the District Inspector of Schools and was duly approved. A letter of appointment was issued to the appellant and he continued to function at a Demonstrator in the college and to draw his salary. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent is the Regulation 16 of the Chapter If requires that after the selection by the Selection Committee and after the approval by the District Inspector of Schools the manager shall appoint only on authorisation under a resolution of the Committee of Management and that no such resolution having been passed by the Committee of Management the appointment of the appellant was bad. We are unable to agree with this contention. In The Junta Inter College v. The District Inspector of Schools, Writ Petition No. 4497 of 1969 the following question was referred for opinion to a Division Bench "Whether the Committee of Management of an educational institution governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, has any discretion to refuse to appoint a person as a teacher who has been duly selected by the Selection Committee and whose name has been approved by the District Inspector of :schools for appointment ? The following answer was given by the Division Bench "The Committee of Management of aD educational institution governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is bound to appoint a person as a teacher who has been duly Selected by the selection Committee and whole name has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools for appointment." In view of this decision the Committee of Management of the College in the present case was bound to appoint the appellant to the post of Demonstrator in Biology. In fact a letter of appointment was issued by the manager but it is said that no resolution was specifically passed by the Committee of Management. In our opinion if the Committee of Management was bound to appoint the appellant, and the appellant was in fact appointed, work taken from him for a number of months and his salary paid by the Committee of Management cannot take shelter behind its own default in passing the requisite resolution and challenge the appointment as invalid. By its conduct the Committee of Management must be deemed to have authorise the manager to issue the letter of appointment. In the notice of termination the petitioner is described as a Demonstrator Biology. The Committee of Management sought approval of the District Inspector of Schools on the footing that the appellant was a teacher in the college as a Demonstrator in Biology. The Deputy Director has also recorded a finding of tact, after considering all the circumstances of the case, that the appellant was a Demonstrator in Biology in the college. In view of what has been said above we are unable to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that the appointment of the appellant was irregular or illegal.;