COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, SHRI HARI MADHYAMIK BALIKA VIDYALAYA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. SUSHILA DEVI MISRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL Appeal No. 971 of 1995 has been filed by the Committee of Management and Special Appeal No. 966 of 1995 has been filed by Smt. Gyan Devi Dubey against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.1995 passed in writ petition Nos. 487 of 1991 and 27017 of 1990. The facts in both the writ petitions had been common and briefly stated here as under: - -

(2.) SMT . Sushila Devi Misra, the contesting respondent in these appeals was appointed in the Shri Hariram Madhyamik Balika Vidyalaya, Village Chandra Loghra, Allahabad with effect from 17.1.1976. Her appointment was approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, vide order dated 13th August, 1979 (Annexure -1 to the first writ petition). The record further reveals that the Committee of Management of the said Institution restrained Smt. Sushila Devi Misra, the contesting respondent from working in the School on the ground that the resignation tendered by her had been accepted by the Management, vide order dated 15th June, 1979. Against the said atrocity of the Manager, the said respondent filed a representation before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 15th September, 1979, but the representation was not disposed of expeditiously and the same was disposed of finally, vide order dated 15.6.1989 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition), Smt. Sushila Devi Misra was not allowed to work in the said Institution on the basis of alleged resignation and in her place Smt. Gyan Devi Dubey, the appellant in the Second Appeal was appointed with effect from 14.10.1980 (Annexure -1 to the second writ petition) and she continued in service till the order dated 15.6.1989 was passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The said Basic Shiksha Adhikari after considering the entire facts recorded a specific finding that Smt. Sushila Devi Misra was appointed in accordance with law and has been restrained from working on the basis of acceptance of a forged and fabricated resignation of which there had been no approval whatsoever from the competent authority and directed to allow Smt. Sushila Devi Misra to work and to derecognise Smt. Gyan Devi Dubey who had been appointed in her place. The said order dated 15.6.1989 was not complied with by the Committee of Management and being aggrieved and dissatisfied Smt. Sushila Devi Misra filed the writ petition No. 487 of 1991 to ensure the compliance of the order dated 15.6.1989 and to pay her the arrears of salary since 1979 and the future salary regularly. Smt. Gyan Devi Dubey filed writ petition No. 27017 of 1990 challenging the same order dated 15.6.1989 on the ground that her services had wrongly been terminated. Both the writ petitions had been disposed of by the learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 23.11.1995, by which the learned Singe Judge had allowed the writ petition No. 487 of 1991 and dismissed the writ petition No. 27017 of 1990.

(3.) SRI Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the Committee of Management has articulately submitted that the contesting respondent Smt. Sushila Devi Misra was not qualified for the post and till today she has not possessed the requisite qualification and, thus, not entitled for the service. The contesting respondent was appointed with effect from 16.1.1976 and her appointment has duly been approved by the competent authority, vide order dated 13.8.1979. It is not permissible for the Committee of Management to challenge the appointment after the lapse of fifteen years. Moreover, the appellant, i.e. the Committee of Management itself had appointed the contesting respondent and, thus, it is not permissible under the law to challenge the appointment of the contesting respondent by the appointing authority itself on any ground whatsoever. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has considered this aspect and recorded a finding that the contesting respondent had made an application for getting the said qualification but the question of alleged resignation came in and the desire of the contesting respondent could not be fulfilled.