- (1.) BY the Court.-The petitioner, a headmaster, appointed on an officiating basis, challenges an order of reversion passed on 29th December, 1986, by the Manager of Gautam Budh Junior High School, Orai, distt. Jalaun.
(2.) THE Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teacher) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) govern the case of the petitioner. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that no headmaster or assistant teacher of a recognised school may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank and subjected to any disminuation in emoluments or served with the notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Basic Education Officer It is averred that so far the Basic Siksha Adhikari has not accorded his approval to the order of reversion passed against the petitioner. If this be correct, the order of reversion will have no effect upon the right of the petitioner to function as a headmaster as a prior approval of the Basic Education Officer of such an order is a condition precedent or sine qua non. If the Basic Shiksha Adhikari refuses to accord his approval that will be the end of the matter so far as the petitioner is concerned. THE petitioner's trouble will, however, start if and when the Basic Shiksha Adhikari accords his approval. From a perusal of the impugned order it transpires that some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Rule 16 of the Rules reads :- " In respect of disciplinary proceedings and the punishment to be inflicted in such proceedings a Headmaster or a Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, of a recognised school shall be governed by the rules applicable to the Headmaster and Assistant Teacher of a Basic School established or managed by the Board. (Italicised by us). Rule 5 of the U. P. Basic Shiksha Karmachari Varg Niyamawali, 1973, provides for an appeal against an order passed in disciplinary proceedings. The question is whether the petitioner would be entitled to prefer an appeal under the aforementioned Rule 5 if eventually an order is passed against him in the disciplinary proceedings. Clearly, there is a reference to the Rules as contained in the U. P. Basic Shiksha Karmachari Varg Niyamawali, 1973 into the Rules pertaining to disciplinary proceedings. However, the legislation by reference is confined to disciplinary proceedings. The words " in respect of " as italicised by us should be given widest meaning. In common parlance they mean relating to or with reference to In our opinion, the words as italicised are wide enough to take in their sweep the provisions of the appeal as contained in Rule 5 of 1973 Niyamawali. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to prefer an appeal if and when the Basic Shiksha Adhikari accords approval to the proposal of the reversion of the petitioner by the Manager of the institution concerned.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Standing Counsel in opposition of this petition. It is to be noted that, according to the impugned order itself, the decision to revert the petitioner was taken by the Committee of Management on 26th December, 1986, and we have already pointed out that the Manager communicated the decision of the Committee of Management to the petitioner on 29th December, 1986. WE are, therefore, satisfied that the management could not have obtained the approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari within two days and that is why we have not considered it necessary to call for a counter affidavit. In the normal course this petition should have been admitted and a stay order granted to the petitioner. Such a procedure would not only have entitled considerable delay but would have also acted against the interest of the management itself. WE are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of this petition finally. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges on or before 6th February, 1987. Ordered accordingly.;