LALLAN RAM Vs. BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays to quash an order dated 19.8.1987 passed by the Manager, Jagardeo Harijan Primary Pathshala, Naipura Kalan, Varanasi as contained in Annexure -1. A perusal of the aforesaid impugned order shows that the petitioner, Incharge Headmaster, was suspended with effect from 18.8.1987, the day on which his conviction under Sections 323, 337 I.P.C. was confirmed in appeal No. 139 of 1987 by Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi according to which he was serving his conviction and sentence in the District Jail, Varanasi, besides he has been found absent without any application from 18.8.1987. He was also further directed to file his explanation in writing by 31.8.1987 failing which it will be presumed that the aforementioned information is correct and he has nothing to say and in that view of the matter his services will be deemed to have been terminated automatically with effect from 18.8.1987. Sri S.N. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the power to suspend and remove the petitioner vested in the Committee of the School and not in the Manager and accordingly the order passed by him is without jurisdiction besides the said order having been served on the petitioner on 10.11.1987 the automatic termination of the petitioner with effect from 18.8.1987 in the absence of his any written show cause till 31.8.1987 was illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel further contended that since the institution of the petitioner is a recognised school, in view of the specific provisions contained in Rule 11 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Staff) Rules, 1975 in the absence of any prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the automatic termination of the service of the petitioner is ultra -vires the aforementioned provision.

(2.) SRI C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 contended that since the petitioner has moved this Court for setting aside of an order passed by a private recognised basic school this writ petition is not maintainable. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that according to the petitioner's own case set forth in the writ petition due to non -payment of his salary for the period August to October, 1987 he himself approached Zila Harijan Evam Samaj Kalyan Adhikari and made a representation dated 6.11.1987, appending its copy as Annexure -3, and when he went again to enquire about the representation on 10.11.1987, he was served with a copy of the impugned order on that day, it is fit and proper for the petitioner to move the said authority (Respondent No. 2) ventilating his grievances made in this writ petition.