BHAIRO NATH UCHTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA Vs. MARKANDEY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE erstwhile Managing Committee of petitioner no. 2 passed a resolution for dismissal of respondent no. 1 on 28th September, 1975. THE relevant papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 28th September, 1975 itself for his approval to the proposed dismissal of respondent no. 1. THEse papers were received by the District Inspector of Schools, according to the petitioner, on the same date. THE District Inspector of Schools passed no order at any stage either approving the dismissal of respondent no. 1 or refusing to approve it. In the meanwhile an Authorised Controller was appointed to manage the affairs of the College concerned. By an order dated 11th March, 1976 the Authorised Controller directed respondent no. 1 to continue as the Principal of the College and take over charge of that post. THE petitioner prays for a writ or direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Authorised Controller dated 11th March, 1976 and also for an order or writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 2- the Authorised Controller-not to give effect to the aforesaid order.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has made only one submission in support of this petition. He oontended that by reason of Section 16-G (3) (a) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921--hereinafter referred to as the Act-read with Regulation 44 of the Regulations framed thereunder, it is mandatory for the District Inspector of Schools to decide whether the proposed dismissal from services of a Principal, Head master or teacher, as the case might be, deserved approval or not and to communicate his decision to the management within six weeks of receipt of the complete papers in connection with the proposal. Since in the instant case he failed to act within the time prescribed, the order of dismissal stood automatically approved and Respondent No. 2 was powerless to render it inoperative. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 16-G (3)(a) of the Act, read with Regulation 44. Section 16-G (3) (a) referred to above is in the following words :-

(3.) WHERE the legislature intended a specific consequence to follow inaction within a prescribed time by the authority concerned, it has so provided for in the Act itself. For instance in subsection (7) of section 16-G of the Act it is enacted that :-