RAJ MANI TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the resolution dated 30th November, 2003, by means of which his services have been recommended to be dispensed with, has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Officiating Principal by the Committee headed by Shri A. P. Dwivedi. THE dispute arose between two factions of the Committee of Management and ultimately the committee headed by Shri A. P. Dwivedi was derecognised by the Registrar, Societies Chits and Fund on 14th February, 2003. THEreafter the present Committee of Management proceeded to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and by means of the resolution dated 30th November, 2003 proceeded to pass a resolution recommending dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Officiating Principal/lecturer. THE resolution was forwarded by the Committee of Management to the U. P. Secondary Services Selection Board for approval. THE U. P. Secondary Services Selection Board by means of a letter dated 29-5-2004 asked for the service record and other records pertaining to the petitioner from the District Inspector of Schools but he is sitting tight over the matter and has not forwarded the service record etc. as demanded by the Board. On account of inaction of the District Inspector of Schools the Board has failed to take any decision in the matter of the petitioner. THE petitioner under the above facts is not being permitted to work although his dismissal has not attained final approval of the Board.

(3.) IT is also submitted that the suspension order of the petitioner was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools at the time when it was passed and till today the suspension order has not been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, the suspension order never came into existence and remained on the file only. The reliance has been placed by him on Section 2 (k) of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (for short the 'act') which defines teacher as a person employed for imparting instruction in an institution and includes a Principal or a Headmaster and shelter of Section 21 of the Act has also been taken by the petitioner wherein it has been made mandatory to the management not to proceed to dismiss or remove or reduce in rank, or emolument, increment without prior approval of the Board. IT also provides that no notice of removal from service shall be served upon an incumbent whose services are sought to be dispensed with without the approval of the Board. The petitioner's dismissal having not attained finality he cannot be deprived of working on the post in question. The suspension order which has been passed has never been approved by the District Inspector of Schools and no decision has been taken by the District Inspector of Schools in respect of the suspension order. The Committee of Management itself was not legally recognized Committee of Management on the date of passing of the suspension order and the District Inspector of Schools rightly did not approve the suspension order. The fresh election took place on 6-7-2003 and on the basis of the said election the Committee of Management was recognised on 1-3-2004. The Committee of Management was having no jurisdiction to pass suspension order or to pass the impugned resolution dated 30h November, 2003, by means of which it has recommended that the services of the petitioner may be dispensed with. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the District Inspector of Schools. The charges have been framed against the petitioner maliciously on account of the change of regime. The earlier Committee of Management headed by Mr. A. P. Dwivedi who appointed the petitioner as Officiating Principal went out of power on 14- 2-2003 and thereafter the present Committee of Management presumed the petitioner to be a man of the earlier Manager proceeded maliciously against him and framed various false and frivolous charges and concluded disciplinary proceedings with undue haste in order to get rid of the petitioner.