SONVEER SINGH Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. This writ petition, which was presented on 23-7-1998, has come up for admission hearing today. Petitioners have assailed the order dated 10-7-1998 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura, cancelling the financial sanction accorded by him for payment of salary to the petitioners, who were appointed as Class IV employees in Sri Lakha Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Veervala, Harnaul District Mathura. The impugned order has been passed in furtherance of an order passed by the District Magistrate, who after considering the inquiry report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mant District Mathura dated 17th June, 1998 found that illegal appointments were made in the aforesaid Institution by the Management and the Principal. The District Magistrate Mathura had directed the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura to look into the matter, who in turn cancelled the illegal appointments.

(2.) SHRI Anil Bhushan, learned Counsel for the petitioners has laid much stress on the fact that the version of the petitioners was not taken into account before cancelling their appointments and illegally the sanction accorded by the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura for payment of their salary was withdrawn. Petitioners were appointed as a result of a formal regular selection, which was held in April, 1998. They were appointed on 30th March, 1998 and the financial approval was accorded on 15th April, 1998. They had resumed charge and received salary for some months. Abruptly their services were terminated by the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura on 10. 07. 1998 on the instructions of the District Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the District Magistrate, Mathura was not competent to issue such directions, as he was not associated with the affairs of the Institution, which was managed by a duly elected Committee of Management. He has further submitted that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners before terminating their appointments and recalling the order granting financial sanction for payment of their salary. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court as reported in Surya Prakash Ojha v. District Magistrate, Ballia, E. S. C. 1992 Allahabad page 992, in support of his submissions. In the said judgment such a controversy was dealt with. This Court has found that the District Magistrate has no role to play in the matters relating to educational Institution and it is for the educational authorities to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders.

(3.) THE District Magistrate has only brought to the notice of District Inspector of Schools, Mathura the irregularities and illegalities committed by the Principal of the Institution. It is relevant to mention that the District Magistrate has not ordered for the cancellation of appointments or for withdrawal of financial sanction accorded by the District Inspector of Schools. THE District Magistrate, being an apex/district Officer, had only brought the aforementioned facts to the notice of the District Inspector of Schools. THE Court has noted that the District Inspector of Schools has remained the ultimate decision making authority and he has accordingly dealt with the matter by cancelling the appointments and withdrawing the financial sanction. Here is not a case where the principles of law as set out in the Division Bench decision cited by Sri Anil Bhushan are applicable. In that case the District Magistrate took the final decision. Here the District Magistrate only brought the illegalities and irregularities in making the appointment to the notice of the authorities of the education department, including the Management of the Institution. District Magistrate is also administrative head of the district, who is some times called as district officer. He is answerable to the State Government respect of in general administration of the district covering all matters in the administrative field. Since the initial appointment was found to be illegal and irregular and the decision has been taken after holding a detailed inquiry and investigation there appears to be no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order calling for interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.