LAWS(ALL)-1990-1-40

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF RAJENDRA PRASAD INTERMEDITE COLLEGE Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BAREILLY

Decided On January 01, 1990
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF RAJENDRA PRASAD INTERMEDITE COLLEGE Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMESH Chandra Jauhari, respondent no. 2 was employed in Rajendra Prasad Intermediate College Meerganj, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the College) as a clerk. Committee of Management of the college initially on 7-10-1979 suspended the respondent no. 2 and thereafter his services were terminated. The order terminating the services of the respondent no. 2 was submitted by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter refeerrd to as the DIOS) for approval. The DIOS vide order dated 21st April 1980 returned the papers on the ground that while suspending the respondent no 2 the Manngement has not complied with sub-section (6) (7) and (8) of section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act and DIOS as such, did not approve the order of termination of the service. By another order dated 23-5-80, DIOS directed for single operation of the accounts of the college under section 5 of the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner who claims to be the Committee of Management of the college has filed this writ petition against the aforesaid two orders dated 21-4-80 and 23-5-80.

(2.) THIS court on 15-9-80 granted an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 23-5-80 passed by the DIOS for single operation of the account. So far as the other order dated 21-4-80 whereby order of termination of the service of respondent no. 2 was not approved, this court did not grant any stay order with the result that order of termination of service of respondent no. 2 was not an effective order and he continued to be in service.

(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly partly allowed and the order dated 23-5-80 passed by the DIOS is set aside. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.