KESHAW PRASAD MISRA Vs. MANAGING COMMITTEE, GAYATRI VIDYA MANDIR, BHARUWA, SUMERPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools as Well as the Deputy Director of Education, whereby while the proposal of the Committee of Management of Gayatri Vidya Mandir Higher Secondary School to dismiss the petitioner as the Headmaster of the School was disapproved a rider was added to the effect that when the said school was upgraded into an Intermediate College, the petitioner should not be considered for promotion under the proviso to Regulation No. 16 of the Chapter 111 of the regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act. Another relief claimed in the petition is that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as the Principal of Gayatri Vidya Mandir Intermediate College, Hamirpur (into which the aforesaid school was upgraded) be quashed.

(2.) The material facts are that the petitioner was the Headmaster of the above-mentioned school. It appears that there were some complaints against the petitioner as regards his integrity and conduct as the Headmaster of the said School. The Committee of Management appears to have appointed a Small, sub-committee to investigate these complaints and to submit a report. The sub-committee submitted its report to the Committee of Management on 27th of April, 1972. The Committee of Management considered the report and finding that the allegations against the petitioner were of a serious nature, it decided that the petitioner should be suspended. By resolution dated 7th of May, 1972 the committee decided to suspend the petitioner forthwith pending enquiry by a small sub-committee. By the same resolution, the Committee of Management authorised the sub-committee to enquire into the charge against the petitioner. In pursuance of the said resolution an order of suspension was served on the petitioner on 16-5-1972 The sub-committee formulated the charges which were served on the petitioner under the signature of Sri Beni Madho, the manager of the School. The charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 1st of Dec., 1972. A copy of the report of the sub-committee was also served on the petitioner on 4th of Dec., 1972. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 27th of Dec., 1972. The petitions was thereafter given notice to be present at the enquiry which was to be held on 8th of April, 1972 before the sub-committee in the School premises. It is asserted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner refused to accept this notice. Thereafter despite repeated intimation and opportunities the petitioner abstained from the enquiry. Apart from sending the notices by post, as a matter of precaution, a notice was also published in newspapers intimating to the petitioner the dates fixed for evidence. Consequently, upon a consideration of the entire material collected by the sub-committee the Committee of Management adopted a resolution on 29th of April, 1973 proposing to dismiss the petitioner. The proposal was submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. Of the five charges framed against the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools found that only one charge relating to embezzlement of the amounts of scholarship of four students of the school and preparation of forged records with a view to conceal the embezzlement of the amounts by the petitioner was proved. In this view, the District Inspector of Schools held that while there was no ground for approving the dismissal of the petitioner. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner in relation,to the amounts of scholarship of the students their embezzlement by the petitioner, the petitioner ought not to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal in case the School was upgraded into an Intermediate College. However, in conformity with the provisions incorporated in the proviso to Regulation No. 16 of the Chapter III, the District Inspector of Schools observed that when the School was upgraded the petitioner should be retained as an Assistant teacher on the highest post for which he was qualified, provided that his salary shall not be reduced.

(3.) The petitioner felt aggrieved by the foresaid rider added by the District Inspector of Schools and filed an appeal for quashing of that rider before the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education fully endorsed the opinion of the District Inspector of Schools as regards the rider and substantially dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by his order dated 17-10-74. Meanwhile after the School was upgraded .the committee of Management considered the case of the petitioner and found that having regard to the record of service of the petitioner he was not lit to be promoted to the post of Principal. Having done that, the Committee of Management advertised the post of Principal in the newspapers on 23-8-1973. It is significant that the petitioner did not apply for selection. Thereafter, the selection committee interviewed various candidates and approved the respondent No. 4, who was already serving in the institution, first as an Assistant teacher and, subsequently, as the officiating principal of the College for the post of principal. The proposal to appoint the respondent No. 4 was approved by the Deputy Director of Education by this order dated 15-4-1974.