Committee Of Management … vs District Inspector Of Schools And … on 2 May, 2000

Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management … vs District Inspector Of Schools And … on 2 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 (3) AWC 1919, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1490
Author: D Seth
Bench: D Seth


JUDGMENT

D.K. Seth, J.

1. By an order dated
28th March. 2000, the petitioner’s appeal was returned on the ground that the Regional Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Relying on Statute 23.04 of the Meerut University Statute, he contends that against the order passed under clause (2) of Statute 23, an appeal lies to the Regional Deputy Director of Education after the order passed under Statute 23.02 is approved under Statute 23.03 of the Meerut University Statute.

2. I have heard Mr. Upadhyaya and the learned standing counsel at length.

3. The Meerut University Statute in Chapter XXII while prescribing

conditions of service of non-teaching staff of the affiliated colleges in Statute 23.02 prescribes that the appointing authority referred to in Statute 23.01 shall have the power to take disciplinary action and award punishment against the class of employee of which he is the appointing authority. By reason of Statute 23.03, every decision of the appointing authority with regard to the disciplinary proceeding as contemplated in Statute 23.02 shall be reported to the District Inspector of Schools before it is communicated to the employee. Such decision shall take effect only when it is approved by the District Inspector of Schools in writing, with certain exceptions provided in the two provisos appended thereto, with which we are not concerned now. Against the order of approval by the District Inspector of Schools in terms of Statute 23.03, the appeal is provided (n Statute 23.04 prescribing that such appeal shall He to the Regional Deputy Director of Education.

4. The whole Chapter XXII was added by the Meerut University (1st Amendment), Statute. 1997 which came into force on 11th May, 1977 namely, the date of publication in the Gazette. Subsequently, certain changes were incorporated in the Statute with effect from 12th June, 1979 by Meerut University (4th Amendment) Statute. 1979. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there has not been any further change in the Statute till date. -The Statute as amended in 1979 by the 4th Amendment is still surviving.

5. Originally, the appeal was provided in Statute 23.03 providing that against an order passed by the Management, the appeal would lie to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. If such order is passed by the Principal, then the appeal would lie with District Inspector of Schools. This provision has now been substituted by Statute 23.04. Whereas a new provision has been incorporated in Statute 23.03 with the requirement of approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Thus. the order of the Management was

subjected to the approval of the District Inspector of Schools in writing. After the order of the Management is approved by the District Inspector of Schools, it becomes an order of District Inspector of Schools which has since been made appealable by virtue of Statute 23.04 prescribing the forum as the Regional Deputy Director of Education.

6. In the impugned order, the appeal was held 10 be not maintainable before the Regional Deputy Director of Education on the ground that there has been some changes in the Statute. Under the changed Statute, the Regional Depuly Director of Education has been divested of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. But in the said order, nothing has been mentioned about the changes that had been made in the Statute. On the other hand. Mr. Upadhyay contends that there has been no change in the Statute after 1979 and the 4th Amendment of Statutes 23.03 and 23.04 is still surviving in the Statute.

7. From the above discussion, it is clear and unambiguous that exercise of power under Statute 23.02 by the Management is subject to approval of the District Inspector of Schools under Statute 23.03, without which the order of the Management remains ineffective. In as much as, the order passed by the Management would not take effect until it is approved by the District Inspector of Schools in writing. Thus, as soon, the order of the Management is approved by the District Inspector of Schools, it becomes an order of the District Inspector of Schools which has since been made appealable by virtue of Statute 23.04 before the Regional Deputy Director of Education as the forum or appellate authority for such appeal.

8. Thus, on the face of the
proviso of the Meerut University Statute as discussed above, the appeal appears to be maintainable

before the Regional Deputy Director of Education.

9. If there has been any change in the Statute, the same has not been brought to my notice. At the same time, the order does not disclose as to under which provision the Jurisdiction of the Regional Deputy Director of Education as appellate authority has ceased. In that view of the matter, this question requires fresh determination about the maintainability of the appeal before the Regional Deputy Director of Education provided there has been no change in the situation by reason of any amendment in the Statute as discussed above after the 4th Amendment.

10. It is contended by Mr. Upadhyay that the impugned order was passed without hearing the appellant. In such circumstances. in case the Regional Deputy Director of Education is still of the opinion that the appeal is not maintainable before him in that event, he may decide the question as to the maintainability of the appeal after giving opportunity to the appellant and then pass appropriate order.

11. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 28th March, 2000 Is hereby quashed.

12. Let the appeal be treated as to have been filed before the said authority who may pass appropriate order with regard to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the appeal before him after giving opportunity to the petitioner as directed above withtn one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The appeal shall be treated to have been restored until the decision in terms of this order is arrived at by the appellate authority concerned.

13. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.

14. Let a certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *