COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT DR SUDAMA PRASAD BALVIDYA MANDIR KANYA INTER Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Committee of Management ggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur dated 4/5-10-2001 (Annexurc-6 to the writ petition) filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia on the ground that the District Inspector of Schools has committed the error in holding that the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 Smt. Neela Chaudhary is illegal and suffers from the prejudice and further that the District Inspector of Schools was not justified in the purported exercise of power of the Rules framed under Section 7-AA of the Act for directing that the order of termination dated 19-9-2001 passed by the Manager of the college. Annexure-3 to the writ petition, is illegal whereby the Manager has purported to terminate the services of the petitioner forthwith from the date of the passing of the order dated 19-9-2001. The case set up by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2, Smt. Neela Chaudhary was designated as Administrative Officer and, therefore, she was not a teacher.

(2.) Since the institution in question is an un-aided institution receiving no grants-in-aid from the State Government, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to pass the order. In any view of the matter, the order of the District Inspector of Schools in view of the present situation proceeded on the assumption that respondent No. 2 is a teacher appointed in accordance with the rules framed under Section 7-AA of the Act. For the aforesaid reason though the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 was forthwith, based on alleged misconduct and without affording any opportunity to the respondent No. 2, should not be interfered with by the District Inspector of Schools and the order impugned to the contrary passed by District Inspector of Schools suffers from the manifest error of law and is liable to be quashed by this Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also raised the argument that the termination of the services of respondent No. 2, Smt. Neela Chaudhary was on account of the fact that the post of Administrative Officer on which respondent No. 2 was working, stood abolished and for this reason also the services of respondent No. 2 were liable to be terminated.

(3.) The impugned order has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools on a representation/appeal filed by respondent No. 2 against the termination order dated 19-9-2001. The District Inspector of Schools after affording opportunity to the management has passed the impugned order. The management has presented its case and reiterated the grounds referred to above. The District Inspector of Schools has recorded findings that the respondent No. 2 though designed as Administrative Officer but was teaching classes of English medium students. The District Inspector of Schools therefore has held that the services cannot be terminated in exercise of powers of rules framed under Section 7-AA of the Act because the Rules 7-AA talks of the appointment and termination of part time teachers and instructors. Even on the admitted case of the management though respondent No. 2 was taking classes of English medium, yet she was not appointed as teacher cannot be believed.