PRAMODINI AGARWAL Vs. REGIONAL INSPECTRESS OF GIRLS SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition order was passed on 13-8-1993. However, before the order could be signed, Shri R. N. Singh learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 5 appeared and requested that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. Learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel also agreed that the petition may be disposed of finally. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, hence the petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that vacancy for the post of head of the institution, namely Sahu Gopinath Kanya Inter College, Shyam Ganj, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the College) arose on 1-7-1992 on account of retirement of Smt. Vimla Rani Saxena on 30-6-1992. Petitioner Smt. Pramodini Agarwal, senior-most teacher in the college was asked by Committee of Management by resolution dated 5-12-1991 and latter dated 9-12-1991, which are annexures 2 and 1 respectively to the writ petition, to take charge from the retiring principal. Petitioner consequently took charge and started discharging all the functions of principal of the College from 1-7-1992. She continued in the office in this capacity throughout. However, the Committee of Management on 22-6-1992 passed a resolution, which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. By this resolution certain charges were levelled against the petitioner and ultimately it was concluded that positioner should be relieved of the office of principal and charge be given to respondent no. 4 Smt. Shashi Prabha. On the basis of this resolution, order dated 28-6-1993 was served on the petitioner by registered post, which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It would be appropriate to reproduce the order served on the petitioner which is as under :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner was never appointed as ad-hoc principal under Section 18 or under the Removal of Difficulties Order, hence there was no question of any reversion It has also, been submitted that petitioner was never paid salary for the post of principal and thus there was no question of reduction in emoluments or reduction in rank and prior approval as required by Section 21 of the Act was not necessary and the management is fully competent to relieve the petitioner of the charge of the office of principal. LEARNED counsel has further submitted that the impugned resolution and the order were sent to the Regional. Inspectress of Girls School, respondent no, 1. However, realising the aforesaid legal position, she only kept the orders oh record by way of information after taking legal opinion and no approval or disapproval was granted. The fact was communicated to the committee of management vide letter dated 5-7-1993, which is Annexure 10 to the counter affidavit. LEARNED counsel has also placed reliance in a judgment of this court in Committee of Management Rant Laxmi Bai Girls Inter College, Unnao v. Director of Education, U. P., Allahabad, 1985 UP LB EC 552 and with reference to the aforesaid case it has been submitted that there could not be automatic promotion.