SARNATH SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION V REGION, VARANASI AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1979-11-102
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 06,1979

Sarnath Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Deputy Director Of Education V Region, Varanasi And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) A selection committee was appointed for selecting a suitable person to be appointed as Principal of Govardhan Uchchatar, Madhya-mik Vidyala Muftiganj, Jaunpur This Committee on 6th January 1979 recommended three names for appointment. The name of the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1 while the name of respondent no. 4 was placed at serial no. 3. The person whose name was placed at serial no. 2 appears to have subsequently refused to accept appointment and, as such, we are not concerned with his case. The Committee of Management did not agree with the report of the Selection Committee by its resolution dated 7th October, 1979 The matter was thereafter referred to the Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi, respondent no. 1, as contemplated by Section 16 E (8) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Deputy Director of Education has by his order dated 31st October, 1979 agreed with the view taken by the Committee of Management. He has held that the Committee of Management was right in taking the stand that the petitioner did cot possess the minimum qualification of having four years teaching experience it is this order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 31st October, 1979 which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(2.) It was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order had not been passed on any reference under Section 16-E (8) but had been passed in proceedings for the grant of approval. We are not inclined to accept this argument. On a plain reading of the impugned order, which quotes the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 7th October, 1979, whereby it disagreed with the recommendation of the Selection Committee it is apparent that the impugned order was passed in proceedings under Section 16 E (8) of the Act.
(3.) It was then urged that approval of appointment by the Deputy Director of Education was still necessary in view of Regulation 18 of the Regulation framed under the Act. We find no substance in this submission either. Regulation 18 contemplates approval of the Deputy Director of Education only in regard to the appointments in institutions governed by Section 16-FF, namely, minority institutions. Admittedly, the College where the petitioner wanted himself to be appointed was not a minority institutions covered by Section 16-FF.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.