Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1210 (ALL)

ANJANI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-05-08

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant; Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel; and Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for third to fifth respondents. 2. Anjani Kumar Srivastava has preferred present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 assailing the validity of order dated 13.4.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 15398/2017 (Anjani Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others) wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the claim set up by the petitioner-appellant with the following observations : “By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of suspension. In support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and others, 2012 (12) SCC 331. The said judgment was relating to the Central Board of Secondary Education. It is submitted that the institution is imparting education and, therefore, is performing public function. The institution in question is a private institution and unaided in any form by the Government although it is claimed that the same is recognized by the U.P.High School and Intermediate Board. In my view, the writ petition is not maintainable. First of all, the institution is totally private and for the private dispute, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court. That apart the order of suspension being an order only pending inquiry and does not mean any punitive action at this stage and the Courts are reluctant to interfere. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” 3. Record in question reflects that there is an Institution known as ‘Raghuvar Prasad Jaiswal Saraswati Shishu Mandir Inter College, Tetri Bazar, District Siddhartha Nagar’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution’) recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the said Institution is also recognized upto intermediate classes by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. at Allahabad but the said institution does not come under the purview of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. It is relevant to indicate that in the year 1985, the Board of High School and Intermediate U.P. at Allahabad accorded recognition under Section 7AA of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in respect of which the Government Order is not at all applicable to make any payment of salary from the State exchequer. The Institution is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it is claimed that the said Society framed rules namely ‘Acharya Evam Karmchari Sewa Niyamawali’. It appears that in the present matter some disciplinary action/proceeding has taken place against petitioner-appellant and in this backdrop it is claimed that as per clause 16.2, only the Committee of Management of Institution concerned is competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution and the Principal of the Institution is not empowered to take any such action and as such suspension order dated 3.1.2017 cannot sustain, which was subject-matter of challenge before learned Single Judge and it has also been claimed that the Institution is imparting education and therefore is performing public function and as such Writ Petition was very much maintainable and in support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has placed reliance on the judgement passed by Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and others, 2012 (12) SCC 331, before the Learned Single Judge and the Learned Single Judge has proceeded to observe that the said judgement was relating to Central Board of Secondary Education and on the said score, he has proceeded to non-suit the claim of petitioner-appellant precisely on the ground that Institution in question is a private institution and unaided in any form by the Government, although it is claimed that the same is recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. at Allahabad but as the Institution in question is totally a private institution, Writ Petition is not at all maintainable and the remedy of petitioner-appellant lies in approaching the Civil Court instead of rushing to this Court. 4. In this backdrop we have proceeded to ask Shri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that at the time of initial induction of petitioner-appellant, the provisions contained under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 had ever been complied with or not. 5. No satisfactory response has come forward. 4. In this backdrop we have proceeded to ask Shri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that at the time of initial induction of petitioner-appellant, the provisions contained under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 had ever been complied with or not. 5. No satisfactory response has come forward. Contrarily Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for contesting respondents has placed before us the appointment letter of petitioner-appellant dated 18.7.2009, which clearly proceeds to mention that on the representation so moved by the petitioner-appellant, the Management of the Institution has given appointment to the petitioner-appellant as Assistant Hostel Superintendent and as such he submits that at no point of time any procedure has been followed in the matter and the Institution, which is a private institution, has every right to place petitioner-appellant under suspension and as such the writ petition cannot be maintained. 6. Once such is the factual situation, then we have proceeded to examine the appointment letter so issued on 18.7.2009 and find that merely on the application moved by petitioner-appellant, an appointment letter was issued to him on a fixed remuneration as Assistant Hostel Superintendent and we are of the considered opinion that against the action of private Institution/Society, writ petition is not at all maintainable before this Court and the learned Single Judge, in his wisdom, has rightly proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petition on this very sole ground and as such, no interference is required to be made. 7. Special Appeal sans merit, and the same is dismissed accordingly.