COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD LAGHU MADHYAMIC VIDYALAYA, BARWA RATANPUR, DISTT. DEORIA AND OTHERS Vs. ZILA BASIC SIKSHA ADHIKARI, DEORIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, challenges the validity of the order dated 30-1-1982 passed by the Zila Basic Siksha Adhikari Deoria, directing for single operation of bank account under the second proviso to sub-sect in (1) of Sect on 5 of the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978. The complaint made before us by the petitioners is that the aforesaid order having been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, the same is invalid. The feet that the petitioners bad not been given an opportunity appears to be admitted. It is a settled law that no such order can be passed by any authority without affording an opportunity.

(2.) In the Committee of Management of Janta Inter College, Fatehabad, District Agra Vs. The District Inspector of Schools, Agra, 1981 UPLBEC 93 a Division Bench of this court was called upon to interpret a similar provision made under the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment Of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. the Bench held that what is required is that the order be passed after due application of mind and after giving opportunity to the management to have its say in the matter. In the instant case the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had not given any opportunity to the petitioners. Accordingly the order is bad.

(3.) Sri K.C. Dhulia, standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, states that as there was no duly elected committee of management there was no question of affording any opportunity of hearing to any body and in that circumstance the order passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari cannot be quashed on the grounds urged before us. This submission is not tenable. From the writ petition it appears that a few days before the passing of the impugned order the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had attested the signature of petitioner No. 2. Attesting of signature obviously meant that he had been recognised to be the manager of the committee of management. In these circumstances it was necessary for toe Basic Shiksha Adhikari to have given an opportunity before passing the impugned order. We quash the impugned order dated 30-1-1982. It will however be open to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed.