Madan Mohan Punchh, J. - (1.) THE jurisdictional question that requires determination before this Full Bench is - -Whether an Additional District Judge is competent to decide an appeal under Sub -section (4) of Section 4 of the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THE aforesaid question has arisen in this writ petition since Annexure P -12, the order impugned herein has been passed, by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, in the purported exercise of his appellate powers under the afore -referred to provision of the Act. The Motion Bench straightway admitted the writ petition to a Division Bench noticing conflict of judicial opinion on the point. The matter when placed before the Division Bench presented. the same difficulty. Before the Division Bench, a decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in (Managing Committer Guru Gobind Singh Republic College, Jandiala v. State of Punjab and Ors.) C.W.P. No. 4337 of 1979 decided, on May 20, 1980, was pressed into service by the Petitioner. The Division Bench entertained doubt as to the correctness of the said decision. In these circumstances, the Division Bench referred the said point for decision by a larger Bench. It is in this way that the question is before us, soliciting answer. *Foundational facts would still be necessary to give the necessary fillip. And they are these:, The Petitioner in January, 1982, was selected and appointed as Principal of Dev Samaj College of Education, Chandigarh, a privately managed college under the management of Dev Samaj Council Society, Respondent No. 1 According to the Petitioner, the Management made her sign two blank papers before her, selection as Principal obviously to be put to use to an appropriate time at an appropriate stage. Sometimes later, she fell out with some of the members of the Managing Committee and they threatened to put to use the blank papers in their possession. Under, the, threat of some of the members of the Managing, Committee, she tendered her resignation in April 1983, which was accepted by the Management on April 23, 1983. Thereafter she asked for the return of the blank papers but they were returned after obtaining another writing from the Petitioner that she had resigned voluntarily. She then chose to take protection of the provisions of the Act. On May 31, 1983, she invoked the jurisdiction of the Director of Public Instructions, Union Territory, Chandigarh, contending that the resignation of the Petitioner was not voluntary and without complying with the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Section 3 contemplates a domestic enquiry and Section 4 puts a fetter on removal and dismissal of an employee unless the same was got approved by the Director of Public Instructions. The said Officer on hearing the Petitioner and the Management on the point accepted the contention of the Petitioner and ordered on February 14, 1984 (order Annexure P -ll) that the Petitioner be deemed to be holding the post of Principal, entitling her to all the benefits of service etc. The Society, Respondent No. 1, and the Managing Committee of the Institution, Respondent No. 2, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Chandigarh, against the order of the Director or Public Instructions. The appeal was made over by the District Judge to Shri O. P. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who in the purported exercise of power under Section 4(4) of the Act, accepted the appeal and set aside the orders of the Director of Public Instructions, - -vide order dated December 12, 1984, Annexure P -12. The plea of the Management as to the resignation of the Petitioner being voluntary was accepted by the Additional District Judge. The order of the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, stands challenged in the writ petition. We need not burden this judgment with factual pleas of the Respondents.
(3.) NOW , who is this 'District Judge' who figures so prominently as the appellate forum in the scheme of the Act ? A persona designate or a Court ? Though Mr. Hira Lal Sibal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, straightaway conceded that he is a Court and not a persona designata, but his concession alone will not solve the question. It would yet have to be solved with the aid of the relevant provisions of the Act.;