SUBAS CHANDRA MISRA Vs. MANAGING COMMITTEE NIGAMANANDA VIDYAPITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nigamananda Vidya-pitha founded in the year 1963 is an "aided educational institution" under the Orissa Education Act of 1969. Petitioner an arts graduate with a bachelor's degree in education, joined the school as Headmaster in July, 1964. By 1967, the institution was recognised as a full-fledged high school and from the year 1969 it started receiving grants-in-aid from the State Government. On 17-2-1972 petitioner was confirmed in his post and started contributing to the Teacher's Provident Fund. The constitution of the Managing Committee of the school was for the first time approved on 8-7-1975. According to the petitioner the school is located within Daulatabad area of Chou-dwar Municipality, A dispute arose between the residents of Daulatabad including one Sri Bansidhar Behera, the then Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School on one side and the inhabitants of a neighbouring village Chasapada by name over the title to the land on which the school building had been raised and gradually the relationship became bitter. In the meantime the petitioner had purchased a plot of land in Chasapada area and wanted to raise a house and shift over there. The Secretary and his henchmen did not like the petitioner to live in Chasapada area and over that question gradually the relationship of the parties became bitter. Attempts were made to victimise the petitioner by making frivolous allegations against him. During the summer vacation of 1978, an attempt was made to forcibly drive the petitioner out of the institution and when the school reopened after the long vacation, possession was forcibly taken of all records and papers available in the office and the petitioner was asked to keep himself out of the institution. These facts were reported forthwith to the Circle Inspector of Schools by the petitioner and he was requested to immediately intervene, but nothing happened and, therefore, the petitioner was forced to apply for leave. The Management requested the Inspector of Schools to authorise Sri P. C. Rout, an Assistant Teacher, to remain in charge of the management and administration of the school and upon approval thereof Sri Rout took over charge of the office. In August, 1978, the Secretary made some wild allegations against the petitioner, and on Sri Isaac Das being elected as President of the Managing Committee at a meeting convened by Bansidhar 'Behera as Secretary, petitioner was ordered to be suspended from service and Sri. P. C. Rout, Assistant Teacher, remained in charge of the office. In this application, petitioner has asked for quashing of the charge under An-nexure-3 and of the order of suspension under Annexure-10, on the basis that the Managing Committee was nonexistent, in the eye of law on the date of framing of charges and passing the consequential order of suspension, and, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated in entirety and the order of suspension cannot be considered to be legitimate.

(2.) Annexure-6 is the order of the Inspector of Schools dated 8-7-1975, approving the constitution of the Managing Committee of the School- Though different dates have been shown in Annexure-6, it is not disputed that the letter is dated 8-7-1975 and the nomination of Sri Bansidhar Behera as Secretary was accepted with effect from 12-5-1974. According to the petitioner, one-third of the members are to annually retire and by the end of the three years, unless there was special permission of the Director of Public Instruction as required under Article 286 (7) of the Orissa Education Code, all the elected members were supposed to have run our their term. Article 286 (7), as far as material, reads thus :-

(3.) We would accordingly allow the writ application, quash the charges and vacate the suspension of the petitioner from service. The petitioner should report to duty within two weeks from today and the Management is directed to implement the order of the Inspector in permitting the petitioner to serve as the Headmaster. Petitioner has been kept out of employment unauthorisedly and, therefore, would be entitled to salary for the period he has been kept out of employment. We express no opinion as to whether petitioner should be subjected to a fresh disciplinary proceeding as it is a matter within the jurisdiction of the employer-managing committee. There would be no order for costs.