COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KRISHNA ASHRAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ANNIE BESANT SCHOOL ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (BASIC), CHAIRMAN U.P. BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in this writ petition does centre around the Judgment of the Honourable M.L. Bhat, J. delivered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 14918 of 1992 and 13019 of 1992.

(2.) The controversy : One petition was filed by the Committee of Management Krishna Ashram Educational Trust and Annie Besant School, Allahabad and the other writ petition was filed by Smt. Krishna Mitra. These two writ petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 26 Aug., 1992, Annexure-3 to this writ petition. The net result of the Judgment of Honourable M.L. Bhat, J. was that the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management v.as allowed and the writ petition filed by Smt. Krishna Mitra, respondent No. 4, was dismissed. Against this Judgment, respondent No. 4, Smt. Krishna Mitra has filed a Special Appeal No. 296 of 1992. Smt. Krishna Mitra Vs. District Basic Education Officer and another. The Special Appeal was filed on 16 Sept., 1992. It is very relevant to bear in mind that along with the memorandum of the Special Appeal, an ad interim prayer was made by an application seeking the stay of the Judgment dated 26 Aug., 1992. The stay application was accompanied by a detailed affidavit filed by Smt. Krishna Mitra, respondent No. 4. The stay application was rejected on 16 Sept., 1992 by the Division Bench of Honourable M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. and Honourable Sudhir Narain, J. The Special Appeal was admitted and is pending. The circumstance of rejecting the prayer for stay of the judgment is relevant for the Court.

(3.) The issues raised in the Judgment of the Honourable M.L. Bhat, J. are in reference to a teacher or a headmistress being placed under suspension and whether this suspension can be made with or without approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The issue whether a suspension can be made with or without approval was an issue, not raised in the earlier writ petition but raised by the respondent No. 4 when she confronted the Committee of Management upon being placed under suspension. She told the Committee of Management that her suspension without the permission of Basik Shiksha Adhikari was illegal. While she confronted the Management that the action to suspend her was not in accordance with law she also attempted to place the law before the Management. This is borne out by a representation she made to the Management, dated 14th Feb., 1992, Annexure-8 to the counter-affidavit of this writ petition. The respondent No. 4 had already gone into the legal semantics on the question whether her suspension could be made with or without approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. This issue is, thus, original to her.