Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2608 (ALL)

OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-11-17

DILIP GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 3rd November, 2011 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri. A further direction has been sought that the respondents should not interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as the Officiating Principal of the Sanatan Dharm Inter College, Hasanpur, District Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution’). 2. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as Officiating Principal of the Institution on 1st July, 2010 and his signatures were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 2nd July, 2010. On 30th January, 2011, the Committee of Management of the Institution resolved to suspend the petitioner and the order of suspension was issued on 31st January, 2011. The District Inspector of Schools, however, revoked the suspension order on 10th March, 2011. This order was assailed by the Committee of Management of the Institution in Writ Petition No. 16047 of 2011 and the petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2011. The matter was remitted to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date a certified copy of the order was filed. 3. The District Inspector of Schools, instead of expressing his views on the suspension order, passed an order on 27th August, 2011 for reversion of the petitioner from the post of Officiating Principal of the Institution to the post of Lecturer in Civics. This order was assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 52573 of 2011 in which an interim order was passed on 12th September, 2011 which is as follows : “The Officiating Principal of Sanatan Dharm Inter College, Hasanpur, Mainpuri has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 27th August, 2011 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri by which he has approved the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Institution taken on 29th March, 2011 for reverting the petitioner from the post of ad-hoc Principal to the post of Lecturer. It is stated that the petitioner was earlier suspended by the Committee of Management by the order dated 31st January, 2011. It is stated that the petitioner was earlier suspended by the Committee of Management by the order dated 31st January, 2011. This suspension order was revoked by the District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 10th March, 2011 but this order dated 10th March, 2011 was set aside by this Court on 29th March, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 16047 of 2011 and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. However, on the same date on which the High Court decided the petition, the Committee of Management of the Institution again resolved to not only revert the petitioner but also to lodge a First Information Report against him. The District Inspector of Schools instead of deciding whether he should grant approval to the suspension order or disapprove it, proceeded to examine what the Committee of Management of the Institution had resolved on 29th March, 2011 and approved the said resolution. It is the submission of Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, the Management could not have reverted the petitioner without the prior approval of the Board. It is also his submission that all that was required to be examined by the District Inspector of Schools was whether the suspension order should be approved or not. Prima facie, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner have force. The matter, therefore, requires examination. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by registered post. Steps may be taken within a week. Respondents may file the counter-affidavit within a period of six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this petition for admission/hearing in the week commencing 7th November, 2011. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is ordered that the operation of the order dated 27th August, 2011 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.” 4. The District Inspector of Schools then passed an order on 10th October, 2011 for compliance of the interim order dated 12th September, 2011 passed by the Court. The District Inspector of Schools then passed an order on 10th October, 2011 for compliance of the interim order dated 12th September, 2011 passed by the Court. By the said order, the District Inspector of Schools stayed the order dated 27th August, 2011 and directed that the petitioner shall work as the Officiating Principal of the Institution. The signatures of the petitioner as Officiating Principal of the Institution were also attested. 5. This order dated 10th October, 2011 was assailed by respondent No. 6-Ram Raksha Pal in Writ Petition No. 62200 of 2011 but on the statement made by the learned counsel that the petitioner (Ram Raksha Pal) does not desire to press the petition, the said petition was dismissed as not pressed on 1st November, 2011. 6. The District Inspector of Schools has now passed an order dated 3rd November, 2011. After narrating the facts, the District Inspector of Schools has recalled the order dated 27th August, 2011 and has also stated that notices are required to be issued to the parties to consider whether the suspension order should be approved or revoked. The District Inspector of Schools has, however, also cancelled the order dated 10th October, 2011 and has issued directions that respondent No. 6-Ram Raksha Pal shall discharge duties of the Officiating Principal of the Institution. 7. It is the submission of Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools deserves to be set aside for the reason that even if the order revoking the suspension order of the petitioner had been set aside, the suspension order cannot last for a period of more than 60 days in view of the provisions of Section 16(G)(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It is also his submission that respondent No. 6-Ram Raksha Pal is not eligible to be appointed as the Officiating Principal of the Institution. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nitinjay Pandey has made submissions on behalf of respondent No. 6-Ram Raksha Pal. Learned counsel for the respondents have stated that the petition may be decided at this stage as it will not be necessary to file a counter-affidavit. 9. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nitinjay Pandey has made submissions on behalf of respondent No. 6-Ram Raksha Pal. Learned counsel for the respondents have stated that the petition may be decided at this stage as it will not be necessary to file a counter-affidavit. 9. It is the submission of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 6 that this Court, in its interim order dated 12th September, 2011, did not issue any direction that the petitioner shall work as the Officiating Principal of the Institution and so the petitioner is not justified in asserting that he should continue as the Officiating Principal of the Institution. It is also his submission that as the suspension order dated 31st January, 2011 was revoked by the District Inspector of Schools on 10th March, 2011 prior to the expiry of 60 days and even the High Court had decided the writ petition on 29th March, 2011 prior to the expiry of 60 days, the suspension order shall not lapse. It is, therefore, his submission that the District Inspector of Schools was justified in permitting respondent No. 6-Ram Raksha Pal to work as the Officiating Principal of the Institution. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The petitioner was appointed as the Officiating Principal of the Institution on 1st July, 2010 and his signatures were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 2nd July, 2010. The Committee of Management of the Institution, however, in its meeting held on 30th January, 2011, resolved to suspend the petitioner and the order of suspension was subsequently issued on 31st January, 2011. Under Section 16(G)(6) of the Act, the Committee of Management is required to report the matter to the District Inspector of Schools and Section 16(G)(7) of the Act provides that no order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of such order. 12. In the present case, the suspension order against the petitioner was issued by the Committee of Management of the Institution on 31st January, 2011. The District Inspector of Schools revoked the suspension order on 10th March, 2011 which is certainly before 60 days. 12. In the present case, the suspension order against the petitioner was issued by the Committee of Management of the Institution on 31st January, 2011. The District Inspector of Schools revoked the suspension order on 10th March, 2011 which is certainly before 60 days. This order dated 10th March, 2011 was, however, set aside by the Court on 29th March, 2011 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order. The High Court had also decided the petition within 60 days. The position is that the petitioner continued to remain under suspension. Whatever may be the position, the fact is that there is no order of the District Inspector of Schools approving the suspension order of the petitioner. Under Section 16(G)(7) of the Act, the suspension order cannot last for more than 60 days if it is not approved by the District Inspector of Schools. When the order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 3rd November, 2011, 60 days had lapsed. 13. The Full Bench of this Court in Chandra Bhushan Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, (1995) 1 UPLBEC 460 , has held that in the absence of approval by the District Inspector of Schools to the suspension order, it becomes inoperative after 60 days though it may become effective again if it is subsequently approved by the District Inspector of Schools. 14. It is not possible to accept the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 that situation contemplated under Section 16(G)(7) of the Act will not arise since the suspension order was revoked within 60 days as nothing turns on this. The petitioner continued to remain under suspension when the order revoking the suspension order was set aside by the Court on 29th March, 2011 but the suspension order cannot last for more than 60 days if it is not approved by the District Inspector of Schools within 60 days from the date of suspension order. The petitioner continued to remain under suspension when the order revoking the suspension order was set aside by the Court on 29th March, 2011 but the suspension order cannot last for more than 60 days if it is not approved by the District Inspector of Schools within 60 days from the date of suspension order. The District Inspector of Schools, in the present case, has issued notices to the parties to consider whether the suspension order should be approved or not but surprisingly even without examining this issue, he has directed respondent No. 6-Ram Raksha Pal to work as the Officiating Principal of the Institution presumably for the reason that the order revoking the suspension order of the petitioner had been set aside by the Court. 15. In such circumstances, the order dated 3rd November, 2011 passed by the District Inspector of Schools cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine whether respondent No. 6 possesses the requisite qualification for appointment as Officiating Principal. 16. It needs to be noticed that the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri has been repeatedly passing orders which are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In such circumstances, it will be appropriate to direct that instead of the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri, the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, should decide the matter. 17. The order dated 3rd November, 2011 is, accordingly, set aside. It is, further, directed that the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah shall examine the matter and pass an order either approving or disapproving the suspension order of the petitioner. For this purpose, the parties, including the Committee of Management of the Institution, may file their representations before the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah within a period of two weeks from today. The District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri shall also forward the concerned papers to the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah within a period of two weeks. The District Inspector of Schools, Etawah shall then pass an order expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of the representations with the certified copy of this order. 18. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. ——————