- (1.) S. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the resolution dated 30th November, 2003, by means of which his services have been recommended to be dispensed with, has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Officiating Principal by the Committee headed by Shri A. P. Dwivedi. THE dispute arose between two factions of the Committee of Management and ultimately the committee headed by Shri A. P. Dwivedi was derecognised by the Registrar, Societies Chits and Fund on 14th February, 2003. THEreafter the present Committee of Management proceeded to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and by means of the resolution dated 30th November, 2003 proceeded to pass a resolution recommending dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Officiating Principal/lecturer. THE resolution was forwarded by the Committee of Management to the U. P. Secondary Services Selection Board for approval. THE U. P. Secondary Services Selection Board by means of a letter dated 29-5-2004 asked for the service record and other records pertaining to the petitioner from the District Inspector of Schools but he is sitting tight over the matter and has not forwarded the service record etc. as demanded by the Board. On account of inaction of the District Inspector of Schools the Board has failed to take any decision in the matter of the petitioner. THE petitioner under the above facts is not being permitted to work although his dismissal has not attained final approval of the Board. This Court passed an order on 13-7-2006 against which an Special Appeal was filed and the order dated 13-7-2006 was set aside in Special Appeal with a direction to this Court to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. The Special Appeal was allowed on 21st August, 2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Inspector of Schools in the case of another person has already held by means of an order that the committee of management was not recognized on the date of passing of the suspension order. He has also submitted that on the date of passing of the resolution dated 30th November, 2003 the Committee of Management was not recognised. He does not dispute that the committee headed by Mr. A. P. Dwivedi came to an end by means of order dated 14th February, 2003 but he emphasised that since the signatures of the Manager were not recognized up till 1-3-2004, therefore, a validly constituted Committee of Management did not come into existence. He has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 264, Nand Deo Pandey v. Committee of Management & Ors. .
(3.) IT is also submitted that the suspension order of the petitioner was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools at the time when it was passed and till today the suspension order has not been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, the suspension order never came into existence and remained on the file only. The reliance has been placed by him on Section 2 (k) of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (for short the 'act') which defines teacher as a person employed for imparting instruction in an institution and includes a Principal or a Headmaster and shelter of Section 21 of the Act has also been taken by the petitioner wherein it has been made mandatory to the management not to proceed to dismiss or remove or reduce in rank, or emolument, increment without prior approval of the Board. IT also provides that no notice of removal from service shall be served upon an incumbent whose services are sought to be dispensed with without the approval of the Board. The petitioner's dismissal having not attained finality he cannot be deprived of working on the post in question. The suspension order which has been passed has never been approved by the District Inspector of Schools and no decision has been taken by the District Inspector of Schools in respect of the suspension order. The Committee of Management itself was not legally recognized Committee of Management on the date of passing of the suspension order and the District Inspector of Schools rightly did not approve the suspension order. The fresh election took place on 6-7-2003 and on the basis of the said election the Committee of Management was recognised on 1-3-2004. The Committee of Management was having no jurisdiction to pass suspension order or to pass the impugned resolution dated 30h November, 2003, by means of which it has recommended that the services of the petitioner may be dispensed with. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the District Inspector of Schools. The charges have been framed against the petitioner maliciously on account of the change of regime. The earlier Committee of Management headed by Mr. A. P. Dwivedi who appointed the petitioner as Officiating Principal went out of power on 14- 2-2003 and thereafter the present Committee of Management presumed the petitioner to be a man of the earlier Manager proceeded maliciously against him and framed various false and frivolous charges and concluded disciplinary proceedings with undue haste in order to get rid of the petitioner. On the other hand the Counsel for the Committee of Management vehemently argued that the resolution which was passed on 30th November, 2003 was ratified by the Committee of Management in its Meeting held on 1st of March, 2004. Therefore, the competency of the Committee of Management to pass the resolution cannot be questioned by the petitioner and once rectification has been made it will be presumed under law that a valid resolution has been passed. He also submitted that inspite of recommendation to dismiss the petitioner to the Board on 30th November, 2003 the Board has not taken any decision and by means of letter dated 29- 5-2004 the service record and other documents were demanded by the Board but they have not been forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools on account of which no action could be taken and the dismissal of the petitioner could not be approved. The petitioner and the District Inspector of Schools are hand in gloves with each other and if the authorities have failed to take any decision within reasonable time then the person against whom serious charges are there cannot be allowed to work. Even if the resolution dated 30th November, 2003 recommending the dismissal of the petitioner has not been approved, the suspension of the petitioner will continue to operate as no decision has been taken by the District Inspector of Schools and to support his argument he has placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision reported in 1995 (1) LBESR 850 (All) (FB) : (1995) 1 UPLBEC 460, Chandra Bhushan Misra v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria & Ors. He has submitted that in view of this judgment the petitioner can not be allowed to officiate as Principal as there are various serious charges against the petitioner which is evident from the charge-sheet and the finding of the Inquiry Officer and the law in this regard has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Murti Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria & Ors. , 1995 SCC (L&s) 1134, wherein it has been said that if the working of a teacher who is senior most, is not in the interest of the institution then the Committee of Management can deprive the person concerned from officiating as Principal. The resolution having been ratified on 1-3-2004 there is no illegality or incompetence on the part of the Committee of Management in passing the resolution or suspension order.;