JITENDRA NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of quashing the impugned order of termination passed without prior approval of the Vice- Chancellor of the University. Learned Counsel appearing for the Committee of Management cited a judgment to establish that ho writ lies as against the Committee of Management. He cited the judgment of Aley Ahmad Abidi v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad & Ors. reported in AIR 1977 All 539 (Full Bench ). According to us the following portion of the judgment is relevant for due consideration : "the Committee of Management of an Intermediate College is not a statutory body. Nevertheless, a Writ Petition filed against it is maintainable if such petition is for enforcement of performance of any legal obligations or duties imposed on such committee by a statute. "

(2.) TO elaborate his argument he contended that there is no statutory obligation or duty imposed on the Committee of Management for the purpose of following the Government Order dated 18-7-2006 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition ).

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that they have been appointed as per relevant provisions of the Government Order dated 9-5-2005 followed by Government Order dated 26-4-2004. By a further Government Order dated 11-3-2005 it issued directions for compliance of the Government Order dated 9-5-2005 for the Degree Colleges running under self financing scheme. Since the salary was not paid to the petitioners for the months of April, May and June, 2005 the matter was agitated by the petitioners before the authorities including Regional Higher Officer and Registrar of the University on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor who on their turn directed the Manager of the College to make due payment to the teachers. However, vide impugned order dated 30-6-2006, the services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondent No. 5. Vide letter dated 18-7-2006 the Registrar informed the Committee of Management of the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor that the petitioners had been duly selected by a duly constituted committee and that no approval/sanction was taken from the Vice-Chancellor in respect with their termination. It was further directed that the new advertisement so made be cancelled and the work be taken from the teachers appointed earlier and that in case no positive response was received from the Committee of Management by 31-7-2006 and the directions of the University were not complied with then action would be taken against the Committee of Management in accordance with law ceasing its affiliation and alternate arrangements would be made. The Committee of Management-respondent No. 5 vide its letter dated 2-8-2006 submitted the reasons mentioned therein that the Committee of Management would not be again forced to be asked to make payment of the salary. The petitioners being thus aggrieved filed this writ petition on the ground that the termination order of the petitioners is per se illegal as the period of the agreement had still not come to an end and the services could only be terminated after conducting the disciplinary proceedings with prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceeding had been initiated neither the petitioners were served with any show-cause notice nor charge-sheet.