Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 857 (ALL)

Committee of Management v. State of U. P.

2010-03-15

ARUN TANDON

body2010
JUDGMENT : Arun Tandon, J. Heard Shri P. N. Saxena, senior advocate assisted by Shri R. K. Srivastava, advocate on behalf of the petitioners, standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ashok Khare, senior advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Singh on behalf of respondent No. 3. 2. Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be finally disposed of at this stage without calling any further affidavits specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today. 3. Petitioner before this Court claims to be the Committee of Management of Krishak Inter College Thanagaddi, Jaunpur. The Committee of Management under its resolution dated 14.2.2010 has placed the respondent No. 3, the Principal under suspension pending enquiry into the charges. A first information report has also been lodged by the Committee of Management against respondent No. 3. The papers pertaining to the suspension of respondent No. 3 were transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with Section 16G(6) of the Intermediate Education Act vide letter dated 18.2.2010. Copy of the letter alongwith details of the attending documents are enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The District Inspector of Schools under the impugned order dated 25.2.2010 has disapproved the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 14.2.2010 only on the ground that the dispute with regards to the Committee of Management is under consideration and a writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. 4. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that every dispute raised with regards to the management of the institution cannot form the basis for interfering with the statutory rights of the Committee of Management. It is pointed out that Committee of Management which was elected in the year 2007 was duly approved by the competent authority. The term of the Committee of Management is 5 years. The elected and recognized Manager however submitted resignation and in his place Tribhuvan Singh who was elected as the Deputy Manager was authorized to function as Manager for the remaining term. The objection to the election/authorization of Tribhuvan Singh is being raised by a third person who is not even a member of the recognized Committee of Management. 5. The elected and recognized Manager however submitted resignation and in his place Tribhuvan Singh who was elected as the Deputy Manager was authorized to function as Manager for the remaining term. The objection to the election/authorization of Tribhuvan Singh is being raised by a third person who is not even a member of the recognized Committee of Management. 5. It is pointed out that on 30.9.2009, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order of single operation of account on the allegation that there is a dispute with regards to the Manager of the Committee of Management. The order was challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52427 of 2009 by the Committee of Management through Tribhuvan Singh wherein an interim order has been granted by this Court on 27.10.2009 staying the order of single operation of account. As a result whereof the Committee of Management is continuing in power and salary bills of staff including that of respondent No. 3 is being submitted under the signature of the Manager, Tribhuvan Singh. It is also contended that the impugned order dated 25.2.2010 has been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management. The subsequent order dated 26.2.2010 directing the respondent No. 3 to function as Principal of the Institution and attesting his signatures has also been challenged. 6. Shri Ashok Khare on behalf of respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 has been selected for the post of Principal of the Institution by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act. One Pramod Kumar Singh filed an application in pending proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2007 wherein an interim order dated 10.12.2008 was granted to the effect that selection process may go on however, no appointment shall be made without leave of the Court. Surendra Nath Singh has since expired, therefore, the proceedings initiated by him before the Hon'ble Supreme Court have become infructuous. Even otherwise he points out that respondent No. 3 is the senior most teacher in the institution, therefore, u/s 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 he is entitled to be appointed as officiating Principal of the Institution till the regulatory selected candidate joins. Even otherwise he points out that respondent No. 3 is the senior most teacher in the institution, therefore, u/s 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 he is entitled to be appointed as officiating Principal of the Institution till the regulatory selected candidate joins. He submits that the suspension proceedings have been initiated only after the death of Surendra Nath Singh, to somehow or the other keep the respondent out of the office of Principal. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 8. So far as the order of the District Inspector of Schools impugned in the writ petition is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the objection of third party which is engaging the attention of the District Inspector of Schools with regard to the post of Manager of the Institution cannot be the basis for disapproving the resolution of the Committee of Management placing the respondent under suspension specifically in the circumstance when an earlier order of single operation of account on the same ground has been stayed by this Court. It is not in dispute that the Committee of Management is in effective control of the institution and is performing all duties of the Management including submission of salary bills and signing of transfer vouchers etc. Every objection raised will not form the basis of recording a finding that there is a bona fide dispute of Committee of Management so as to debar the exercise of statutory powers by the Committee of Management in effective control. Even otherwise the order has been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing of the Committee of Management. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 25.2.2010, is legally not sustainable and is hereby quashed. 9. The issue which now survive for consideration is as to what action is to be taken by the District Inspector of Schools on the papers transmitted qua suspension of respondent No. 3. The suspension of a Principal, if not approved, within 60 days in writing by the District Inspector of Schools would in view of Section 16G(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 will cease to be operative. 10. For adjudicating upon the issue of approval of suspension, this Court finds that the grievance of the respondent No. 3 also needs to be examined. 10. For adjudicating upon the issue of approval of suspension, this Court finds that the grievance of the respondent No. 3 also needs to be examined. 11. Therefore, it is provided that the District Inspector of Schools shall take fresh decision on the papers transmitted by the Committee of Management qua suspension of respondent No. 3 preferably within three weeks from today. He shall afford opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 3 as well as the petitioner and shall pass a reasoned speaking order. 12. The Court has been informed that the respondent No. 3 being the senior most teacher of the institution has been assigned the duties of Centre Superintendent by the Board for conducting the High School and Intermediate examinations. Such working of the respondent No. 3 as Centre Superintendent shall not be interfered with and shall abide by the orders to be passed by the District Inspector of Schools, as indicated above. Writ petition is partly allowed, subject to the observations made hereinabove.