MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE MUNGRAURA MIDDLE SCHOOL Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Managing Committee of the Mungraura Middle School, Jamalpur, district Monghyr. filed through its Secretary, Nawal Kishere (sic) Lal, is directed against the order dated the 18th September, 1971, (Annexure 19) passed by the District Education Officer, respondent No. 1, withdrawing the approval of recognition of the Managing Committee of the said school and constituting an ad hoc committee in place of regular managing committee.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point for consideration in this case it wilt be necessary to state briefly the facts. The said school is within the municipal area but it is not managed by the municipality. The school is, however, aided school. The aid came from the consolidated fund of the State Government. On the 23rd March, 1971, respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to all the schools for absorbing retrenched teachers, a true copy of which is enclosed with Annexure '6'. On the 12th April, 1971, the petitioner had enquired from respondent No. 1 for suggesting some names of the teachers who are on his panel for filling up the vacancy of matric trained teacher with additional qualification in Sanskrit, like Madhyama, Sashtri or others, which had existed in the said school, vide Annexure 2. On the 5th June, 1971, however, the petitioner sought for approval of the Sub-divisional Officer of the Education Department for appointing one Amresh Jha to the aforesaid vacancy (see Annexure 3). It will be relevant to mention at this stage that the Sub-divisional Officer had not approved the appointment of Amresh Jha so far as it appears from Annexure 26 to the supplementary affidavit filed on the 24th July, 1972, on behalf of the petitioner. On the 12th June, 1971, respondent No. 1 wrote a letter (Annexure 4) to the petitioner enquiring from him as to why he had made appointment against his instruction contained under the aforesaid letter dated the 23rd March, 1971. On the 18th June, 1971, the petitioner sent a letter (Annexure 5) to respondent No. 1 mentioning therein that he had not received his letter dated the 23rd March, 1971, on the 26th June, 1971, respondent No. 1 wrote another letter (Annexure 6) to the petitioner mentioning therein, that the appointment of Amresh Jha was illegal and in his place Rameshwar Mishra ought to have been appointed. He directed the petitioner to appoint Kameshwar Mishra and to forward to him the resolution of the managing committee resolving the appointment of Kameshwar Mishra soon. He also enclosed his letter dated the 73rd March, 1971, as mentioned earlier. On the 19th July, 1971, respondent No. 1 sent another letter (Annexure 7) to the petitioner reminding him to furward to him the resolution of the managing committee regarding the appointment of Shri Mishra. On the 2nd August, 1971, the petitioner wrote a letter (Annexure 8) to respondent No. 1 stating therein that according to circular. No. 4771 dated 28th December, 1970 (Annexare 20) too manners committee was quite competent to make the appointment of Amresh Jha and the Sub-divisional Officer was the competent authority to approve the same for which the petitionor had approached. The petitioner again reiterated that, the letter of respondent No. 1 dated the 23rd March, 1971, was not received by the petitioner in time. If it would have so reached the petitioner would have certainly approached him for suggesting some qualified Sanskrit teacher for making appointment. It was also mentioned in the said letter that as the committee did not know about the academic and training attainment and other particulars of Rameshwar Mishra regarding his age, conduct, etc. it was not in a position to consider Mishra's case for appointment, as directed, after removing Amresh Jha from service. In a letter dated the 5th August, 1971, (Annexure 9) respondent No. 1 reiterated that under the circumstances the appointment of Amresh Jha was irregular and Shri Mishra ought to have been appointed as directed. In his letter respondent No. 1 further asked the petitioner to show cause as to why it had disobeyed the direction of the Department and on that ground alone why the committee of the school should not be dissolved and in its place a new managing committee be constituted. In reply to the said letter the petitioner sent a letter dated the 16th August, 1971, (Annexure 10) the relevant portion of which reads as:

(3.) J.N.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the order chiefly on two grounds, namely, (i) respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to withdraw the approval of the recognition of the managing committee of the said school and also to constitute an ad hoc committee in its place and (ii) there was complete absence of material for taking such a drastic step by respondent No. 1 whose action was motivated and was completely vitiated on the ground of mala fide. I will take into consideration ground No. (1) first.