Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3318 (ALL)

PAWAN KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-10-26

A.P.SAHI, F.I.REBELLO

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—This Appeal has been preferred by the Manager of a Committee of Management of D.A.V. Inter College, Tateri, Baghpat, which is an institution recognized and governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed there under. 2. The dispute relates to the holding of office by the Appellant as Manager, who has been acknowledged as such upon the recognition granted to the elections of the Committee of Management by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 21.6.2010. The objection taken by the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 - petitioners before the learned single Judge while assailing the order of the District Inspector of Schools was that the appellant is ineligible to hold the office of Manager in view of the specific bar contained in Regulation 5 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 21.6.2010. Hence this Appeal. 3. The appellant contends that he is a Teacher of Mathematics in G.V.S. School, Dayalpur, Delhi, and is an employee of the said institution under the control of the State Government of Delhi and the Joint Director of Education, New Delhi. It is submitted that the aforesaid disqualification as prescribed under Regulation 5 of Chapter III will not apply to the appellant inasmuch as he is not a Teacher of any recognized institution within the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the operation of the 1921 Act can in no way prohibit the appellant from occupying the office of Manager of an institution within the State of Uttar Pradesh as he is a teacher within the territory of Delhi. In essence, the submission is that the operation of the aforesaid provision does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the State of U.P. and even otherwise holding of such an office of Manager within the State of U.P. is no misconduct under the relevant service Rules under which the appellant is employed. 4. In essence, the submission is that the operation of the aforesaid provision does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the State of U.P. and even otherwise holding of such an office of Manager within the State of U.P. is no misconduct under the relevant service Rules under which the appellant is employed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ganguly contends that the learned single Judge has extended the said definition by adding words to it, inasmuch as holding an office of profit by itself is no disqualification for occupying the post of Manager and the Government servant Rules or any other rule of the State Government or the Central Government would not disqualify the appellant from contesting any such elections. It is urged that the learned single Judge has, therefore, committed an error by concluding that the appellant is holding an office of profit and, therefore, he is disqualified from functioning as a Manager of the institution which is admittedly an honorary post. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 contends that the fact that the appellant is working as a Teacher in the State of Delhi being not disputed, the appellant is disqualified as he is a Teacher within the meaning of the Regulations and, therefore, the order impugned does not deserve any interference. It is further contended that even otherwise the matter can be examined in terms of public policy as well that a Teacher should not be allowed to function as a Manager as he would not have time to devote himself to the institution. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the regulations do provide for prohibition and the matter can be examined by the Joint Director of Education, who is the Chairman of the Regional Level Committee in his supervisory jurisdiction and, therefore, no interference be made with the impugned judgment. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the provision which is at the out set required to be considered is Regulation 5 of Chapter-III quoted herein below: “5. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the provision which is at the out set required to be considered is Regulation 5 of Chapter-III quoted herein below: “5. No member of the teaching staff or the Principal or Headmaster shall act as an office-bearer of the Committee of Management of any recognized institution.” Further it would be appropriate to refer to the definition of the word “institution” as contained in Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act quoted herein below: “2 (b) “Institution” means a recognized Intermediate College, Higher Secondary School or High School and includes, where the context so requires, a part of an institution, and “Head of Institution” means the Principal or Head Master, as the case may be, of such institution;” 8. It would be apt to mention that the word “teacher” has not been defined but the same can be construed from the definition of the said word as contained in other co-related enactments. The payment of salary of Teachers within the State of U.P. in private aided institutions up to the Intermediate level is governed by the provisions of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The word “teacher” is defined in Section 2 (e) thereof quoted below : “2 (e) ‘teacher’ of an institution means a Principal, Headmaster or other teacher in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government to the institution and includes any other teacher employed in fulfillment of the conditions of recognition of the institution or its recognition in a new subject or for a higher class or as a result of the opening with the approval of the Inspector of a new section in an existing class;” The same word has also been defined in Section 2 (k) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. 9. Combining the definition of the words teacher and institution as contained in the 1921 Act and other related Acts, it is evident that the word “teacher” means a teacher employed in a recognized institution within the State of U.P. under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The word teacher does not mean a teacher who is employed outside the State of U.P. inasmuch as the maintenance grant enables such a teacher to receive salary within the State of Uttar Pradesh. The word teacher does not mean a teacher who is employed outside the State of U.P. inasmuch as the maintenance grant enables such a teacher to receive salary within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Reasonably construed a teacher as defined under the Act would, therefore, be a teacher of any recognized institution which has been extended the benefit of recognition under the 1921 Act and no other institution. 10. The appellant is not a teacher of any recognized institution within the State of U.P. Accordingly, in our opinion, the appellant is not covered by the definition of the word “teacher” of an institution as contemplated under Regulation 5 of Chapter-III noted above. Once this is so, the appellant does not suffer from any inherent disqualification or ineligibility to occupy the office of Manager. There is no statutory disqualification even otherwise in the service conditions of the appellant. A supplementary-affidavit has been filed bringing on record the information received under the Right to Information Act alongwith the provisions of Chapter 59 of the C.C.S. Conduct Rules (Swami compilation) where prior permission to take part in such activities is necessary but the same would be a matter of conduct or otherwise if the same applied to the service conditions of the appellant in the institution at Delhi where he is functioning. The aforesaid provisions will not disqualify the appellant to act as a Manager within the State of Uttar Pradesh. 11. The Office of Manager is defined in the Scheme of Administration and the Scheme that is applicable to the institution does not disqualify any such teacher from acting as a Manager. A perusal of clause 6 (6) of the Scheme of Administration recites that any person, who is employed in the institution or in any other recognized institution, will not be entitled to act as a Principal or office-bearer of the Committee of Management. The said definition in the Scheme of Administration takes it’s colour from the statutory provisions as quoted herein above inasmuch as the Scheme of Administration is approved under the provisions of Section 16-A of the 1921 Act. The Scheme, therefore, cannot be construed to give a wider definition to the word teacher so as to include teachers whose services are not governed by the 1921 Act. The Scheme, therefore, cannot be construed to give a wider definition to the word teacher so as to include teachers whose services are not governed by the 1921 Act. The definition clauses as discussed above are exhaustive and not inclusive so as to bring within it’s fold any and every teacher, who may not be governed by the 1921 Act. The Court cannot add more than what is intended by the legislature nor can any additional definition be added to the Scheme of Administration as brought on record. 12. The learned single Judge, in our opinion, has erred in including any office of profit as held by the appellant to be an inherent disqualification which, in our opinion, is neither intended under any provision of the 1921 Act or the Scheme of Administration. 13. Consequently, the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 21.6.2010 did not require any interference on this count. The appellant, in our opinion, was not disqualified from either contesting the election or holding the office of Manager while continuing as a teacher in the State of Delhi. 14. Accordingly, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The Appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 17.8.2010 is set aside. ——————