INDRA PAL GUPTA Vs. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, MODEL INTER COLLEGE, THORA, DISTRICT BULAND SHAHR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is clear from annexure B to the petition that the Managing Committee of the Model Intermediate College, Thora was of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner was such that he was not fit to be retained in service as Principal. In fact as appears from annexure B the petitioner who attended the meeting of the Managing Committee as Principal on 27-4-1969 was interrogated and faced with charges of misconduct. The Committee, however, passed a resolution terminating the service as the petitioner was on extended probation and had not been confirmed. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 30-6-1969 approved the termination of the service of the Principal.

(2.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner questions the validity of the so-called termination of his service by the resolution passed by the Managing Committee on 27-4-1969. His case is that the termination in the circumstances in which it has been made by the Managing Committee amounts to punishment of removal or dismissal from service and the punishment having been imposed upon him without following the procedure prescribed under Sec. 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed thereunder becomes vitiated. Indeed it has not been denied or controverted in the counter affidavit that the action against the petitioner was taken by the Managing Committee on serious charges of mismanagement brought against the Principal by the Manager. But it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that a reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner by the Managing Committee when he was faced with the charges and asked to explain on 27-4-1969, at the meeting of the Managing Committee. But the learned counsel for the opposite parties when faced with the relevant regulations and Sec. 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act found it difficult to justify that what was done at the meeting of the Managing Committee on 27-4-1969 complies with those provisions. The attack made by the petitioner based on non-compliance of the relevant regulations and the provisions of Sec. 16-G of the Act on the validity of the action taken, appears to be sound and sustainable. No matter the petitioner was not a permanent Principal yet he was entitled to a regular show cause notice against the charges brought and an opportunity to be heard as required by the regulations. The impugned order of termination thus was a mere camouflage and cannot be regarded in the circumstances as having been passed by the Managing Committee in the normal course. The District Inspector of Schools was in error in approving of the termination in those circumstances.

(3.) Lastly it was urged on behalf of the opposite parties that the Managing Committee of the College not being a statutory body, no writ can be issued against its action under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Ram Misra Vs. The Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain College and another AIR 1972 S. C. 1450) . In that case the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were dealing with the action taken by the Managing Committee of a college affiliated to Lucknow University. On a reading of the relevant provisions of the Lucknow University Act, statute and the Ordinance framed thereunder they arrived at the opinion that a Managing Committee of a College affiliated to the Lucknow University does not become a statutory body, but at the same time they did not disapprove the previous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prahhakar Ramkrishna Jodh Vs. A.L. Pandey (1965) 2 SCH. 713 , wherein the Supreme Court on a reading of the Saugar University Act, statute and the Ordinance framed thereunder arrived at an opinion that the Managing Committee of a College affiliated to Saugar University would be a statutory body, On a careful consideration of the two cases decided by the Supreme Court, referred to above, and on a reading of the relevant provisions of the intermediate Education Act and the regulations governing the conditions of service of the Principals and the Teachers of a recognised Intermediate Colleges, I have no hesitation in holding that a Managing Committee of a recognised Intermediate College exercises statutory functions when considering a question of termination, removal or dismissal of the Principal and the teachers. The law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh Vs. A. L. Pandey (supra) applies to the instant case before me and not the law declared in Vidya Ram Misra Vs. the Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain College and another (supra). I, therefore, hold that this Court in the exercise of its Jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution can in appropriate cases issue orders and directions by way of writs to the Managing Committees of the recognised Intermediate Colleges in regard to the action taken by them against the Principal, the teachers or other employees whose conditions of service are governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed thereunder.