NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 8.2.2000 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Agra. Annexure-10 to the writ petition, by which he has rejected the approval of petitioner's appointment as clerk in Shree Digamber Jain Inter College, Agra. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows :

(2.) Shree Digamber Jain Inter College is a minority institution, a certificate in this regard has been issued by District Inspector of School. Agra on 20.9.1976. It is alleged that on a leave vacancy arising on one year's leave taken by permanent clerk, the management appointed petitioner and the documents were sent to District Inspector of School. Agra. for approval. A reminder was also sent to him in this regard. However, before approval could be granted, the said clerk retired. The committee of management advertised the substantive vacancy in daily newspaper "Aaj" on 22.6.1999. This advertisement was also published in the newspaper "Statesman" on 30.6.1999. Petitioner applied for the same. The selection was postponed and the information of postponement was published in daily newspaper "Dalnik Jagran" on 18.7.1999. Subsequently interview was notified on 8.9.1999, on which date Interviews were held, in which 10 candidates appeared before the selection committee. Petitioner was found as the best candidate on the basis of quality points marks, and was selected. The papers regarding petitioner's selection were forwarded to District Inspector of School. Agra. by the management on 9.9.1999. The District Inspector of Schools, Agra raised certain queries, which were replied to, and clarified by the management stating that there is only one post of clerk and in absence of which the work of the institution is suffering and thus management issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 10.10.1999, in pursuance to which, petitioner joined on 15.10.1999. By order dated 8.2.2000. District Inspector of Schools. Agra, has refused approval of appointment on two grounds ; firstly, that no approval of the advertisement and examination of the posts was taken from his office ; and secondly that according to G.O. No. 578/Das-Savinl-l/99 dated 16.6.1999. Instructions were issued not to make appointments on the posts, which were to fall vacant on retirement.

(3.) Heard Sri Anil Bhushan. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prior approval is required under Chapter III of Regulation 101. The committee of management sought prior approval but the District Inspector of Schools did not communicate any decision in this regard to the management. He submitted that Regulation 101 does not prescribe time limit within which the Inspector of Schools has to give prior approval, .n Inspector must exercise his powers within a reasonable time. In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. K.T. Rolling Mills Put. Ltd.. JT 1995 (1) SC 138, it was held that when a power is conferred by statute without mentioning the period within which it could be invoked, the same has to be done within reasonable period, as all powers must be exercised reasonably, and exercise of the same within reasonable period would be a facet of reasonableness. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of this Court In Rajendra Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education. Gorakhpur and others. 1999 (3) AWC 2123. in which this Court relied that if Inspector has not communicated his decision within two weeks, it shall be deemed to have accorded his approval. In this decision, this Court has relied upon other provisions, namely. Section 16 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 and para 2 (3) (iii) of U. P Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order. 1989. in holding that two weeks from the date of receipt of letter seeking approval would be reasonable period within which the District Inspector of Schools must communicate his decision to the appointing authority, failing which he shall be deemed to have accorded approval. On the second reason given in the impugned order, learned counsel submitted that the ban on the appointments was not applicable to Government-aided educational institutions. Learned counsel further submitted that the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 seeking prior approval for appointments are not applicable to minority institutions. For this proposition, he relied upon a recent judgment of Supreme Court In C/M. St. John Inter College v. Girdhari Singh and others, Civil Appeal No. 5397 of 1997. decided on March 30. 2001.