COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjeev Singh for the respondent No. 3, Sri Mrigraj Singh for the respondent No. 2 and Sri Vimlesh Rai for the respondent No. 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, refusing to exercise his jurisdiction for either approving or disapproving the termination proposal made by the Committee of Management against the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the suspension order of the respondent No. 3 has been stayed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 6747 of 2006.

(2.) Sri Umesh Vats, apart from the other grounds, has raised a primary submission to the failure of the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Basic Education Officer contending that in view of the provisions of Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules, the District Basic Education Officer is obliged to pass an order and he cannot refuse to do so on the pretext of the pendency of the suspension proceedings. The contention is that the suspension proceeding already stands terminated with the passing of the resolution for termination of services of the respondent No. 3 and the interim order passed in the suspension order is no legal impediment before the Basic Education Officer to proceed to pass an order of approval or disapproval under Rule 15.

(3.) Sri Sanjeev Singh raised two objections firstly that the writ petition is not maintainable on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as the very status of the petitioner-Committee of Management is doubtful as it is not the validly recognized Committee of Management. The second submission is that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity in the background that the petitioner-Committee has adopted an attitude of harassment and has proceeded on the basis of charges which was not even the part of the suspension proceedings. He contends that the Committee has found out someway or the other to dislodge the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.