M.B.FAROOQI,J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Principal of Shree Brindaban Vidyapith Inter College, Brindaban, District Mathura, on 1st July, 1945. In accordance with the then prevailing law applicable to the recognised institutions like the aforesaid College the petitioner executed an agreement in form Appendix VI to the Educational Code, which governed the terms and conditions of his service. He was due to retire on 31-7-1975. On 24th June, 1972, he applied for leave on full pay for four months and five days and for a further period of 27 months of half pay, effective from 1st July, 1972. The main ground of the application was that he was keeping indifferent health and could not, therefore, discharge his duties efficiently. By a resolution dated 15th July, 1972 the Committee of Management sanctioned the leave in his favour. The Inspector of Schools, however, disputed the right of the Commitee of Management to sanction the leave and referred the matter to the State Government. The State Government held that the Committee of Management was within its right to sanction the leave and directed payment of leave salary to the petitioner. Accord­ing to the respondent State the arrear salary has even been paid to the petitioner, although the counsel for the petitioner disputes the statement. On 16th August, 1974, the petitioner applied for extension of leave upto 31st July, 1975, the date of his retirement and also requested that the entire period from 1-7-1972 to 31-7-1975 may be treated as leave on full pay in consideration of his long and dedicated service to the institution. By its resolution dated 20th August, 1974, the Committee of Manage­ment acceded to the request of the petitioner and granted him leave on full pay for the entire period from 1st July, 1972, to 31st July, 1975. The Inspector of Schools disputed the validity of the resolution and did not allow the petitioner to draw the arrears of salary in accordance therewith. The matter remained under correspondence and meanwhile the Committee of Manaaement, by its resolution dated 8th June, 1975, decided that its resolution dated 20th August, 1974, shall be treated as an amendment to its earlier resolution dated 15th July, 1972. But the Inspector of Schools still held the view that the resolution was incom­petent. Therefore the matter went up to the Director and even to the State Government who again held in favour of the petitioner and directed the arrear leave salary be paid to him, but the Inspector did not relent and pressed for review. Aggrieved by the action of the Inspector the petitioner filed this writ petition and relying on the pro­visions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Inspector to pay arrears of leave salary. During the pendency of the petition, however, the State Government as also the Director of Education reviewed their respective orders and cancelled the orders on May 11 and 12, 1976, respectively on the plea that the correct facts were not placed before them on the previous occasion.
(2.) BEFORE us, the learned counsel for the State Conceded that in the matter of leave, regulation No. 99 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, was not applicable to the present case and that it was governed by the terms of the agreement executed by the petitioner with the Committee of Management of the Institution. Clause 6 of that agreement reads thus:- "6. The Principal/Head Master/Head Mistress may be allowed leave as follows: (a) By the Manager- (i) Not more than fourteen days casual leave in any college school, year to include holidays which may occur immediately before and after or during the period of absence. (ii) Such duty leave as may be necessary to attend to official business such as serving on a jury or attending educational Com­mittee on which he/she is serving with the approval of the Committee (b) By the Committee. (On application submitted through the Manager). (i) No more than one month's leave on full pay on Medical Certificate for every completed three years of service in the College/School but not more than three months at any one time. (ii) Not more than one month's leave on half pay for every completed year of service, but more than three months at any one time. (iii) Such other leave on such terms and for such period as the Committee may in each individual case decide. Leave cannot be claimed as of right but shall be granted with regard to the exigencies of the College/School and when leave is refused the grounds of refusal shall be recorded on the applica­tion " Clearly clause (b) (i) contemplates leave on full pay on medical grounds and clause (b) (ii) on half pay on any ground whatever. In reality the leave admissible under clause (b) (i) is in the nature of sick leave and that under clause (b) (ii) is in the nature of earned leave. It was open to the petitioner to accumulate and even avail of leave admissible under each of these clauses for a period not exceeding three months at any one time. On the other hand, clause (b) (iii) contdm-plates leave of special nature not covered by either clause (b) (i) or clause (b) (ii). Putting it differently, clause (b) (iii) covers leave other than sick leave on full pay admissible under clause (b) (i) or earned leave on half pay admissible under clause (b) (ii). It was obyiously intended to cover absence of the petitioner due to extraordinary reasons say for instance, if he wanted to engage himself in further studies in any educational institution in India or abroad. The expression "such other leave" is significant enough to support this construction. Accord­ingly, it was not open to the Committe of Management to sanction leave to the petitioner under this clause either on grounds of health or as a reward for the services rendered by him, much less on full pay. The resolution of the Committee of Management dated 20th August, 1974, sanctioning leave on full pay to the petitioner for the period July 1, 1972 to July 31, 1975 on grounds of health and as a reward for his services is clearly unjustified and without jurisdiction. If we may say so, it is a still­born order. Its endorsement by the Director of Education or even by the State Government could not clo the it with legal validity which it lacked from its inception. Accordingly if the Director of Education or the State Government have subsequently withdrawn the earlier order endors-ing-the resolution without notice to the petitioner, he cannot be heard to say that the action of the Director or of the State Government is invalid as violating the principles of natural justice.
(3.) IN these circumstances we find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.;