SURESH PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in a higher Secondary School, the committee of management whereof is respondent No. 4. After the coming into force of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, an order was passed by the respondent No. 3 directing the management to retrench one of the two posts of clerks and terminate the services of the junior of the two incumbents. Accordingly, the management passed an order dated 17th July 1973, which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. By this order he was given three months notice of termination on the ground of redundancy. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition has been filed in which it has been assert ed that the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act confers an arbitrary power on the State Government and as such are violative of Article 14 of the consti tution. It is also stated that the said Act did not give a power to the authorities to ask any institution to dispense with the services of its employees and that the District Inspector of Schools had not made any inspection of the institution on the basis of which it could be asserted that the services of one of the two clerks were not required. It appears that the institution had actually supported the petitioner before the authorities and contended that his post was necessary. THE said Act provides for payment of salaries the Government. Section 10 lays down that the State Government shall be liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every recognised institution for the lime being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. This liability has been accepted with effect from 1st April, 1971. It also provides for transfer of a portion of the fee realised from the students by the institution to the salary fund operated under the Act. THE District Inspector of Schools has been given a supervisory role. THE Act was passed for protection of the interest of employees. As a consequential provision it was also laid down in Section 4 of the U. P. Education Manual that the inspector may at any time, for the purposes of this Act, inspect or cause to be inspected any institution or call for such information and records from its management with regard to the payment of salaries to its teachers or employees or give to its management any direction for the observance of such canons of financial propriety (including any direction for retrenchment of any teacher or employee) or for prohibition of any wasteful expenditure as he thinks fit. It is further laid down in sub section (2) of this Section that where a direction under sub-section (1) is given for retrenchment of any teacher or employee, it shall be complied with in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations or, as the case may be, the conditions of his service. Regulation 21 made under the Intermediate Education Act provides that the Services of a permanent employee may be terminated by giving him three months notice or three months pay in lieu thereof on abolition of the post which the employee is holding. THE abolition may be due inter alia, to retrenchment decided upon for reasons of financial stringency. It cannot, therefore, be said that the District Inspector of Schools had no power to issue any such direction. Section 4 (1) of U. P, Act No. 24 of 1971 also does not require that before any such direction is issued the institution must be inspected. THE petitioner himself has annexed to the petition a letter sent by the Deputy Director of Education to the Management of the Institu tion which refers to a G. O. according to which the District Inspector of Schools may permit an additional Clerk to an aided institution if the number of students reaches 900 and two additional clerks if the number reaches 1300, and so on. This order say that on every 400 additional strength of students over 500 an additional clerk may be permitted to be appointed. From this it cannot be said that as soon as the number exceeds 500 an additional clerk should be appointed. THE obvious implication is that an additional hand would be admissible if the number reaches 900. According to the petitioner himself, the strength of students in the institution was 600. This does not entitle the institution to appoint an additional hand. THE District Inspector of Schools was bound by this Government order which laid down the norms. When the matter was patent on the face of the record it did not require an inspection of the institution to find out whether an additional hand was needed or not. Actually inspection of work would not always be useful because due to opera tion of what has been called the Parkison's law there is always enough work for any number of hands that may be appointed for any job. It is the general norms that have to govern the decision in such cases. THEre is thus no illegality in the impugned order. THE order being in accordance with the norms laid down by the said G. O. cannot be said to be arbitrary. Nor can the conferment of powers on the Inspector under Section 4 (1) or on the Director under Section 9 be said to be excessive or unguided. It is implicit that the power will be exercised only to ensure that more hands than are needed in accordance with norms are not allowed to be retained or appointed. It is but proper that the public exchequer is not saddled with liabi lity for payment of salary even for employees who are not really needed. THE provisions cannot therefore, be said to be ultra vires on the ground of excessive delegation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that subsequently the institution has been or is about to be recognised as an intermediate College and an additional hand would be needed. If so, as to which we have no information on the record, it should be open to the petitioner to apply for appointment against that post. In the result the writ petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed. No order is, however, made as to costs.