MANJULA MISHRA Vs. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Som Kartik, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and Sri Ranjan Roy, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4. None appears for the opposite party No.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 17.11.2006 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) passed by the Joint Director of Education, 6th Region, Lucknow/opposite party No.2 by which the date of petitioner's substantive appointment in the L.T. Grade has been amended. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Music Teacher in L.T. grade on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in Sindhi Vidyalaya Girls Inter College, Ram Nager, Alambagh, Lucknow, hereinafter referred to as "the College" on 12.09.1988 under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Commission and Selection Boards) Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The petitioner's ad hoc appointment as L.T. grade teacher was approved by the Regional Inspector of Girls School by order dated 26.11.1988. By letter dated 22.10.1994 issued by the Manager of the College, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner's ad hoc appointment in the L.T. grade had been regularised under Section 33-B of the Act as inserted by amending Act No.1 of 1993. The petitioner being the senior most teacher in the L.T. grade was appointed as Officiating Principal by an order dated 01.07.2006 upon superannuation of Smt. Ramesh Khanna, Principal of the College on 30.06.2006. By a letter dated 28.11.2006 issued by the Manager of the College, the petitioner was informed that the opposite party No.2 had passed an order on 17.11.2006 changing the date of petitioner's substantive appointment as mentioned in the order by which the petitioner's services were regularised from 12.09.1988 to 07.08.1983. According to the petitioner, the order dated 17.11.2006 was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording her any opportunity of hearing although the impugned order carries civil consequences. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.4 rebutting the averments made in the writ petition. In paragraph-2 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that a perusal of the impugned order shows that by the said order, the opposite party No.2 has merely rectified the error with regard to the date of petitioner's substantive appointment/regularisation of her services which had inadvertently crept in his earlier order dated 26.07.1994 when the said error was brought to the notice of the authorities on the complaint of the opposite party No.5. Since the petitioner's claim was considered for regularisation under Section 33-B(1) of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 07.08.1993, the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner could not be of a date prior to 07.08.1993 as the date of substantive appointment of every ad hoc teacher whose services were regularised under Section 33-B (1) of the Act could not be of a date prior to 07.08.1993. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner before correcting an error which was apparent on the face of the record as even if the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing, she could not have improved upon her case as in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, no two views are possible and hence, the failure to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the opposite party No.2 before passing the impugned order will not vitiate his order in any manner as the petitioner has totally failed to show that she has been prejudiced in any manner on account of having not been afforded opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order, which is patently erroneous has been passed by the opposite party No.2 in a mechanical manner, in utter disregard of the settled legal position and the material on record and also suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the order dated 17.11.1006 was passed by the opposite party No.2 in gross violation of principles of natural justice without giving any notice to the petitioner and without affording her any opportunity of hearing although the said order carries civil consequences. Since the impugned order is an ex-parte order having been passed behind the back of the petitioner, the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following cases: 1. Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. The District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar and others, 1982 UPLBEC 213.

(2.) DR. M.S. Mudhol and another Vs. S.D. Halegkar and others, (1993) 3 SCC 591. Sri Ranjan Roy, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court. He further submitted that since the petitioner has failed to show that non-observance of the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order has caused any prejudice to the petitioner, interference with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted on the aforesaid ground alone. He further submitted that no useful purpose would have been served in giving notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order as the impugned order is based on indisputable facts leading to only one conclusion. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has relied upon the following cases:- 1. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237. 2. K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India, (1984) 1 SCC 43.