COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF SHRI NARAIN PANDEY VIDYALAYA CHAUBEPUR KANPUR DEHAT Vs. DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER KANPUR DEHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, 1952 for setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.10.2003 of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition that had been filed by the appellant Committee of Management for a direction upon the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat to accord approval to the termination of services of Sri K.B. Singh and for quashing the order dated 17th June, 1983 passed by District Basic Education Officer. Sri K.B. Singh, respondent No. 2, in the present special appeal, was appointed on 1st July, 1982 on probation for a period of one year as Head Master in Narain Pandey Vidyalaya Chaubepur, Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as the 'School'). His services were terminated by the Committee of Management before the expiry of the aforesaid probation period without taking the prior approval in writing from the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. THIS order was challenged by Sri K.B. Singh by filing Writ Petition No. 9509 of 1983 but during the pendency of the writ petition, the District Basic Education Officer disapproved the termination order by the order dated 17th June, 1983 on the ground that the provisions of the U.P. Recognized Basic School (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the '1978 Rules') had not been complied with. THIS order dated 17th June, 1983 was challenged by the Committee of Management in the writ petition out of which, the present special appeal arises. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer under Rule 15 of 1978 Rules was necessary even for terminating the services of a probationer in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Prem Lata Yadav Vs. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad and Anr., 1986 0 UPLBEC 102 and that having not been taken, the termination order was illegal and was rightly disapproved by the District Basic Education Officer. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that prior approval of District Basic Education Officer was necessary before terminating the services of a teacher on probation but what he submits is that the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari should have remitted the matter to the Committee of Management for taking a decision in accordance with the Rules instead of disapproving it. The issue is about the interpretation of Rule 15 of 1978 Rules which is as follows:- "Termination of Service:- No Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a recognized school may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer. Provided that in the case of the Headmaster or an Assistant Teacher or minority institution the approval of the District Basic Education Officer shall not be necessary." A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule clearly shows that before imposing any of the punishments enumerated in the said Rule on a teacher, it is absolutely necessary for the Committee of Management to take prior approval in writing of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. THIS would also be applicable in a case of termination of service of a teacher on probation also as was held by this Court in Prem Lata Yadav (supra). Law is well settled that if a statute requires a thing to be done in particular manner, it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. In this connection, reference may be made to famous decision rendered in Taylor Vs. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch. D. 246 that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. THIS was reiterated by Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 and by Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Vs. Govind, AIR 1975 SC 915, and Hukum Chand Vs. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 789. The Committee of Management, therefore, could not have terminated the services of Sri K.B. Singh without the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari disapproved the termination order on the ground that the Committee of Management had not taken prior approval in writing before terminating the services of Sri K.B. Singh. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer or by the learned Single Judge. The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that in such circumstances, the District Basic Education Officer should have remitted the matter to the Committee of Management for taking a fresh decision. THIS submission cannot be accepted. The Committee of Management had resolved to terminate the services of Sri K.B. Singh and the termination order was also issued even though the District Basic Education Officer had not granted prior approval in writing. The District Basic Education Officer was, therefore, justified in disapproving the termination. It was for the Committee of Management to take appropriate steps thereafter in accordance with law and not for the District Basic Education Officer to advice what it should do. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.