NATHU RAM GUPTA Vs. DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was appointed teacher in the Harnarain Inter College, Ganj Dundwara, district Etah on 4 -8 -1962. His appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. He was confirmed on that post. Later on he was promoted to the post of lecturer by the Managing Committee under its resolution dated 23 -7 -1968. The Managing Committee forwarded its proposal to the District Inspector of Schools for approval and pending approval Petitioner was allowed to work on the post of lecturer. During the pendency of approval one of the teachers of the institution filed a civil suit questioning the Petitioner's promotion to the post of lecturer. During the pendency of the suit the matter of approval was kept pending before the District Inspector of Schools and it was only when the suit was withdrawn that the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 31 -3 -1970 disapproved the Petitioner's promotion to the post of lecturer. Thereafter certain correspondence followed between the Manager of the Institution and the District Inspector of Schools. Ultimately the Manager of the Institution issued an order to the Petitioner on 29 -6 -1973 that his services stood terminated as the District Inspector of Schools had refused to grant approval to his promotion to the post of lecturer. The Petitioner thereupon filed the present petition challenging the order of termination dated 29 -6 -1973.

(2.) THE District Inspector of Schools refused to grant approval to the Petitioner on the ground taut since the Petitioner's father was a member of the Committee of Management of the Institution the Petitioner was not entitled to employment in pursuance of the provisions contained in the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act which imposes a ban on the employment of a relation of a Member of the Committee of Management as a teacher in the Institution. This petition is not contested on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools and the allegations made in the petition have not been controverted by him, instead Mehtab Rai, Manager of the Institution has filed a counter affidavit controverting the Petitioner's allegations. In his counter affidavit he has asserted that the Petitioner's father continued to be Member of the Committee of Management and as such his promotion to the post of lecturer was contrary to the statutory regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, hence the Petitioner was not entitled to function as a teacher in tine institution. This version is incorrect. During the pendency of the approval proceedings before the District Inspector of Schools, Mehtab Rai, the Manager himself too had addressed a letter dated 28 -12 -1970 to the District Inspector of Schools, a copy of which is filed as Annexure R -5 to the rejoinder affidavit. In that letter Mehtab Rai informed the District Inspector of Schools that Petitioner's father Har Narayan had resigned from the membership of the Committee of Management on 19 -5 -1961 and since then he had not been acting as Member of the Committee of Management passed unanimous resolution promoting the Petitioner to the post of lecturer, his father was not present in the meeting and further his father was not a Member of the Committee of Management. By that letter Mehtab Rai, the Manager, himself requested the District Inspector of Schools to accord approval to the Petitioner's appointment to the post of lecturer. In view of his own letter of Mehtab Rai, I am not inclined to place any reliance on the averments contained in his affidavit.

(3.) THE letter of the Manager dated 29 -6 -1973, Annexure 5 to the petition, states that in consequence to the order of disapproval issued by the District Inspector of Schools, the Institution would not take any work from him. In his affidavit the Petitioner has asserted that even though the Petitioner's promotion to the post of lecturer was disapproved, the management of the institution did not allow him to work even as a teacher. As already noted the Petitioner had been appointed as a teacher in the year 1962 and his appointment as a teacher was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. The Petitioner was continuing in service as a permanent teacher. His status as a permanent teacher could not legally be affected by the order, of the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the Petitioner's promotion to the post of lecturer. Even if the Petitioner's promotion was disapproved, he had a right to continue as a teacher in the institution. The management was totally wrong in taking the stand that since the District Inspector of Schools refused to grant approval to the Petitioner's appointment on the post of lecturer, he ceased to be a teacher under Section 16 -G of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder no teacher can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank unless a resolution to that effect is passed by the Managing Committee and the order of termination or removal is approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit filed by Mehtab Rai shows that no resolution of the Committee of Management was passed nor approval had been obtained from the District Inspector of Schools for the termination of Petitioner's services as a teacher. In the circumstances the Petitioner has a right to continue as a teacher in the institution even after disapproval of his promotion to the post of lecturer.