SRI KANT RAI Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to have been appointed, on 5 -8 -1979, as Head Master, of a Junior High School known as Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhiti (Khoria) Gorakhpur, by its management. It is alleged that the Junior High School was raised to the status of High School on 21 -9 -1979 and the petitioner was permitted by the management to function as Adhoc Principal of the High School. District Inspector of Schools by order dated 24 -7 -1982 has refused to approve the appointment and continuation of the petitioner as principal of the School. It is against this order that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on three grounds namely, (i) in view of Section 16E(10) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act only the State Government and the Director can cancel the appointment of the bead of the institution and the District Inspector of Schools has no power to disapprove the appointment; (ii) the District Inspector of Schools could not have passed the impugned order without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; and (iii) the petitioner having been appointed as Head Master of a Junior High School, is entitled to continue as lecturer if he is not appointed as a Principal of the High School.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties has agreed that the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred as Rules) are applicable to the appointment of Head Master and teachers of a Junior High School. It is also admitted by the learned counsel that the appointment of the petitioner in 1979 was without approval of the District Basic Education Officer. In view of Rule 10 the appointment cannot be made without approval of the District Basic Education Officer. In fact the management has no power, under the Rules, to make an appointment without approval. Appointment of the petitioner, as such was void Ab initio. For such appointment Section 16E(10) of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act will not apply for two reasons, namely, (i) the appointment was made under the rules framed under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 and for such an appointment the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act are not attracted and (ii) the appointment being void Ab initio is liable to be ignored.

(3.) LAST plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to continue as lecturer in the institution, if he is not appointed as Principal, cannot also be accepted. As the petitioner's appointment was, as mentioned hereinbefore, void Ab initio, no such benefit can be given to a 'person who does not have valid appointment. That apart, after the stay order was vacated on 10 -3 -1983 the petitioner is not working in the institution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.