Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 673 (ALL)

CHANDRAMA PRASAD TIWARI v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-02-28

A.P.SAHI

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Sri L.K. Dwivedi has been heard for the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and Sri Rajiv Ratan Singh for the Respondent No. 7. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the orders passed by the Committee of Management on the strength of approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools imposing a punishment of reverting the petitioner from the post of Officiating Principal of the Institution to the substantive post of Lecturer. 3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner came to be punished after holding an inquiry by the Committee of Management while holding the post of Officiating Principal. This was sent for approval to the District Inspector of Schools who approved it by the order dated 30.12.2009, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 6.1.2010. As a consequence of the said approval, the Committee passed the order which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. The main ground of challenge raised by Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel, for the petitioner is that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools and the order of the Manager pursuant thereto are without jurisdiction inasmuch as the institution in question is an Intermediate College governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 of the regulation framed thereunder read with the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act 1982 and the regulations framed thereunder. Sri Mishra has invited the attention of the Court to Section 21 of the 1982 Act and has urged that in view of the said provision, the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to grant any approval and the Committee of Management or the Manager had no authority to impose the punishment of reverting the petitioner to his substantive post of lecturer. For this, he has relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Raj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, in Writ Petition No. 25498 of 2009 decided on 18th May, 2009. He contends that if the order is without jurisdiction then the only option open was to refer the matter to the Selection Board for decision in accordance with law. 5. He contends that if the order is without jurisdiction then the only option open was to refer the matter to the Selection Board for decision in accordance with law. 5. Sri L.K. Dwivedi and Sri R.R. Singh learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned Standing Counsel Sri A.K. Yadav contend that so far as the law declared in the said judgment as relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, they have not been able to lay hands on any law to the contrary. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Sharma still holds the field and I find no good reason to deviate from the reasons given therein. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools and by the Manager are without jurisdiction. The order dated 30.12.2009 and 31.12.2009 are hereby quashed. However, the provisions of Section 21 of 1982 Act requires that the matter should be examined by the Board and prior approval has to be obtained. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools shall transmit the entire records to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board and the Board shall after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the Committee of Management and after calling for a report from the District Inspector of Schools, proceed to pass an appropriate order within three months from today. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ——————