RANI SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court :-Could services of head mistress of a Junior High School appointed by the Committee of Management, initially on probation and then made substantive be brought to an end after five years, by initiating process of appointing fresh head mistress through advertisement.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY Sri Gita Bal Mandir Junior High School, Kashipur (Nainital) is recognised under Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972. In June, 1984 the petitioner was appointed on a fixed salary on probation till 30th November, 1984. By letter dated 15th November, 1984, she was made permanent with effect from 1-12-1984. In August, 1985 fresh letter was issued that she is being appointed temporary and her services were liable to be terminated at any time. The petitioner immediately made representation that she having become permanent by letter dated 15-11-1984, she could not be appointed afresh temporary. No action was taken on it. And the process of issuing letter by Secretary that she was being appointed temporarily either till June or May or April continued in 1986, 1987 and 1988. Each time petitioner objected. In 1985 she represented to Secretary, that she having been appointed permanently the fresh letters of appointment treating her temporary were illegal. In 1989 it appears one of the members raised an issue that for better administration of college it was necessary to appoint a male principal and Basic Shiksha Adhikari also raised peculiar objection and wrote to the management that unless regular principal was appointed he was not willing to grant approval to the appointment of teachers. Consequently management issued advertisement, aggrieved by which petitioner approached this Court.

(3.) PRINCIPAL infirmity in appointment of petitioner, that could be pointed out, was that it was made without issuing any advertisement and recommendation by selection committee. May be but could the management which appointed petitioner in 1984 and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari who did not raise any objection to payment of salary for five years raise this objection in 1989. The appointing authority under rules is the Committee of Management. And the approving authority is the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who under U. P. Act no. 6 of 1979 is also to supervise the payment of salary and is empowered to inspect and check. For five years no objection was raised by him. And then suddenly when one of the members desired that a male principal should be appointed, he also raised an objection. The petitioner had raised objection as far back as 1985 against her being treated and temporary employee. No action was taken on it. Nor any decision was given. For procedural irregularity the petitioner should not be made to suffer. Normally it is to be presumed that Management must have sent papers for appointment of petitioner to Basic Shiksha Adhikari who must have granted approval unless it is rebutted either by placing any communication by Management or from record of Basic Shiksha Adhikari to show that things did not proceed as they are provided in the Act. In absence of any material there is no reason to doubt that Committee of Management would have appointed without intimating Basic Shiksha Adhikari and would have even issued letter appointing petitioner permanently and Basic Shiksha Adhikari would not have raised any objection in respect of payment of salary etc. from 1984 to 1989. Change of Secretary or Basic Shiksha Adhikari should not be permitted to create any difference otherwise it shall result in creating arbitrariness and expose teachers of being thrown out of employment on one or the other pretext and shall never have security which is necessary for efficient discharge of duty. Equity stands in her favour and prevents both the appointing and approving authority from taking recourse to their own mistakes, for causing prejudice to petitioner. Estoppel, the principle of equity, is the shield for such unjust and unfair actions.