MANAGING COMMITTEE, V.P. KRISHI UDYOG INTER COLLEGE, KANPUR Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, KANPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two orders have been challenged in this petition. The first is dated 24th July, 1974 whereby the termination of the services of the respondent No. 2 Ram Pyare Pandey by the petitioner - Management was declared illegal by the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur by the same order, the Management was directed to reinstate Ram Pyare Pandey, who was at that time a clerk in C.P. Krishi Udyog Inter College, Moosanagar, District Kanpur. The other order is dated 4.11.1974 whereby exercising powers under Sec. 5 of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter described as the Act), the District Inspector of Schools has directed that Salaries Account of the Teachers and other employees of he Institution shall be operated by him singly.

(2.) The main thrust of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is against the order dated 24.7.1974 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The argument is that as the law then stood, the approval of the District Inspector of Schools before termination of the service of member of the clerical staff of a recongised Institution was not required. The District Inspector of Schools was hence wholly wrong in holding that the termination of the services of Ram Pyare Pandey was illegal. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a full Bench Decision of this Court reported in Magan Ram Yadav Vs. Deputy Director of Education and others, AIR 1980 Alld. 68 : 1979 ALJ 1351. This Full Bench does seem to support the contention of the learned counsel that prior to the insertion of Regulation 100 in Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, the previsions of Sec. 16 - G of the Intermediate Education Act requiring prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools before the termination of the services of the teachers were not applicable to the members of the clerical staff.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, invited our attention to a Government order issued on 4th June 1966 whereby it was provided that punishment and appeal of Headmasters, principals, teachers and clerks including shall be regulated accordance with the provisions of Sec. 16 - G and the Regulations framed thereunder. It was urged that this Government order is clearly referable to the powers vested in the State Government under Sec. 9 (4) of the Intermediate Education Act and congruently it had statutory once binding on all the the recognised institutions. There is no manner of doubt that this Government order has statutory force and is clearly traceable to power of the State Government under Sec. 9 (4) of the Intermediate Education Act. This Government order dated 4.6.1966 was admittedly in force when the management purported to termination the services of the Second respondent. In view of the provisions of the Government order it is apparent that the termination of the services of the respondent no. 2 was completely null and void in as much as admittedly the approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not sought accorded prior to the termination of the services of the second respondents. Unfortunately, this Government Order does not appear to have been noticed by the Full Bench in the case of Magan Ram Yadav (supra).