MAGAN RAM YADAVA Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this writ petition, which should normally have been decided by a Division Bench, came up for hearing, the Bench hearing it was of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Manager, Shanta Nand Swatantra Bharat Inter-College v. Kamla Rai, (1972 All LJ 933) needed reconsideration by a larger Bench since it was not in accord with another Division Bench decision of this Court in Dhata Intermediate College v. Brahma Nand Singh, (1976 All LJ 499) and that is how this case happens to be before this Full Bench.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this case are that respondent No. 6, Chandrika Lal, was employed as a librarian-cum-clerk at the Maharajganj Inter-College, Maharajganj, Dist. Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the College). During the relevant period because there was a conflict between two sections of the members of the Society running the College, two rival bodies of persons were claiming to be the duly elected Committee of Management thereof. This led to a civil litigation between the two rival Committees of Management and an interim order of injunction therein came up to this Court in Civil Revision No. 697 of 1963. While deciding the Civil Revision, Hon'ble K.B. Asthana, J. (as he then was) passed an order directing appointment of a Receiver to manage the affairs of the College and to exercise the powers of the Committee of Management till such time as the suit itself was decided. As a consequence of this order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sagari, commenced functioning as the Receiver of the College and exercising the powers of its Committee of Management he framed certain charges against respondent No. 6 and pending enquiries into, suspended him from service. Ultimately the Receiver came to the conclusion that respondent No. 6 merited the punishment of termination from service. Under the impression that the approval - of the District Inspector of Schools was needed before the services of respondent No. 6 could be terminated, he sought such approval and sent the papers to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools under the impression that the Receiver had proposed the punishment of dismissal from service of respondent No. 6 while agreeing that he deserved to be punished directed that he be removed from service instead of being dismissed therefrom. Aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 6 filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education of the Region concerned. The Deputy Director of Education dismissed the appeal for default of respondent No. 6. Thereupon respondent No. 6 applied for review of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education on the ground that there was no power in him to dismiss the appeal in default which should have been decided on merit even if the appellant was absent. The Dy. Director of Education accepted the contention of respondent No, 6 and reviewed his earlier order and allowed the appeal of respondent No. 6 filed against the order of the District Inspector of Schools and directed his reinstatement to service. It may be mentioned here that during the proceedings before the District Inspector of Schools and in the appeal filed by respondent No. 6 the petitioner Magan Ram Yadav was not a party. During the period respondent No. 6 was under suspension and out of employment in consequence of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools and during the pendency of the appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, the petitioner was appointed as librarian of the College first on a temporary and subsequently on probation. According to the petitioner during this period he completed his period of probation satisfactorily and was confirmed as the librarian of the College. In consequence of the order of reinstatement of respondent No. 6 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, the District Inspector of Schools directed that the services of the petitioner Magan Ram Yadav be terminated and respondent No. 6 be reinstated to the post. Respondent No. 6 claims that as a result of the order of the District Inspector of Schools, he rejoined the service of the College as a librarian on the 7th October, 1974. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education on the appeal of respondent No. 6 and the consequential order of the District Inspector of Schools directing his reinstatement, the petitioner moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying in substance for quashing the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education and that of the District Inspector of Schools directing reinstatement of respondent No. 6 of the service and termination of his own service in consequence.

(3.) When this petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, it was urged, as it has been before us, that the Receiver appointed by this Court who was functioning as the Committee of Management of a recognised institution was not required either under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or the Regulations framed thereunder to seek the approval of the District Inspector of Schools before either dismissing or removing from service a librarian. It was contended that while Section 16-G of the Act required approval of the District Inspector of Schools before the services of a teacher or head of an institution could be terminated either by dismissal or otherwise there was no requirement under the Act or the Regulations acting as an impediment to the Committee of Management ordering the dismissal or removal from service of a librarian. It was urged that since there Was no statutory requirement requiring the Receiver to seek approval of the District Inspector of Schools to his decision to terminate the services of respondent No. 6, proceedings before the District Inspector of Schools as well as the appellate order by the Deputy Director of Education directing reinstatement of respondent No. 6 to the service of the College were without jurisdiction and of no legal consequences as far as the services of the petitioner, who had been appointed on probation and subsequently confirmed on his post was concerned.