Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39030 of 2010 Petitioner :- C/M Of Azad Hind Inter College Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- K. Ajit Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,Pankah Kumar Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad
through its Secretary as respondent no.5 during the course
of the day. A copy of the writ petition may be served upon
Sri A.K. Yadav, Advocate who represents the Board today.
Learned Standing Counsel represents respondent nos. 1 to
3. Sri R.K. Ojha and Sri Pankaj Kumar, Advocate have
accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. Respondents
are granted time upto 27th July, 2010 to file counter affidavit.
List this matter on 27th July, 2010.
Respondent no.4 is working as Principal in petitioners’
institution, namely, Azad Hind Intermediate College, Karhal,
Mainpuri. Against him disciplinary proceedings were initiated
which resulted in a resolution of the Committee of
Management proposing punishment of dismissal from
service. Papers in that regard have been transmitted to the
U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board through
the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 23rd March,
2009. The board has not taken any decision thereto till date.
However, he was placed under suspension during this
period. The matter came up before this Court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 63995 of 2009. The writ Court vide order
dated 25th November, 2009 disposed of the writ petition
observing that it would be appropriate that the matter with
regard to the proposed punishment may be examined by the
U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board within
three months from the production of the certified copy of the
order. More than 7 months have elapsed since then. Since
the respondent no.4 was continuing in the office, the
Committee of Management noticed certain serious
irregularities on his part and proceeded to suspend him
again vide resolution dated 17th April, 2010. A copy of the
resolution along with attending documents were forwarded
to the District Inspector of Schools for necessary approval
under Section 16 G (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act. The District Inspector of Schools has rejected the
proposal submitted by the Committee of Management on the
ground that it is not accompanied with the required
documents as also on the ground that it is in the interest of
justice to await the order of the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board in the matter of punishment
proposed earlier. This order as well as the order of the
District Inspector of Schools dated 5th May, 2010, whereby
the District Inspector of Schools has restrained the
Committee of Management from entering into the institution
have been challenged by means of the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehementally contended
that all documents were forwarded to the District Inspector of
Schools as required under Regulation 39 of Chapter III of
the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. Therefore, the order impugned is
patently illegal. He further submits that no Management can
be restrained from entering into the institution by the District
Inspector of Schools. If any complaint is made by the
Principal qua misbehaviour with him by Management, he
has the liberty to either lodge a First Information Report or
to recommend action in accordance with the provisions of
U.P. Intermediate Education Act. However, the District
Inspector of School has no power to pass ex parte order
restraining the Management from entering into the
institution. He further contends that respondent no.4 has
taken law in his own hand and he has not complied with the
order of the Management requiring him to produce the
documents asked for.
Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for respondent no.4 disputes
the correctness of the charges levelled against respondent
no.4 as well as the allegation that all the papers as required
were not submitted along with the order of suspension.
This Court will examine the legality of the order disapproving
the suspension after affidavits are exchanged.
The U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board
must conclude the proceedings by the next date fixed in
accordance with law, and inform the Court of the decision so
taken on the papers transmitted.
So far as the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated
5th May, 2010 is concerned, this Court is of the firm opinion
that such order prima facie cannot be sustained, it has the
affect of restraining the employers from entering into their
institution. Consequently, the operation of the order of the
District Inspector of Schools dated 5th May, 2010 shall
remain stayed. It is further directed that Principal of the
institution shall deposit all the records asked for by the
Committee of Management of the institution with the District
Inspector of Schools who shall permit the inspection thereof
to the Committee of Management on or before 19th July,
2010.
It goes without saying that the Principal of the institution is
expected to attend the institution on its scheduled time and
should not reach the institution late, as it will lead to
indiscipline in the institution.
(Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 8.7.2010
Sushil/-