MURARIPANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application there are six petitioners, out of whom petitioner No 1 is the Headmaster of Middle School, Phesra in the district of Aurangabad and petitioners No. 2 to 6 are the Assistant teachers of the said school. The prayer of the petitioners is to quash the order contained in Memo No. 520 dated 16-3-1995 (Annexure-1) by which the petitioners have been suspended. The order of suspension has been passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad (respondent No 3) under the orders of the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee (hereinafter in short the Establishment Committee).

(2.) In this writ application the question which has fallen for our consideration is whether in view of the Government notification dated 11th October. 1985 the power to take administrative and disciplinary actions including suspension vests in the District Education Establishment Committee and it lies with it or keeping in view the Government order dated 2nd December, 1980 it has to be disposed of by the District Superintendent of Education under the orders of the District Magistrate, who happens to be the Chairman of the said Establishment Committee, Clause 4 of the aforesaid notification of 1980 reads as under :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_53_BLJ1_1994Image1.jpg</IMG> Clause 5 (gh) of the aforesaid 1985 notification reads as under :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_53_BLJ1_1994Image2.jpg</IMG> In absence of the statutory Rules which are still to be framed by the State Government under the provisions of the Bihar Non Goverement Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976, the power to take disciplinary actions and effect suspension as an interim measure has to be called out from the aforesaid two notifications Keeping in view the settled Rule of interpretation, the provisions of 1985 notification being later should be deemed to have implicdly repealed the provisions made under 1980 notification and in that view of the matter the only reasonable and permissible legal inference is that the disciplinary actions can be taken only by the Establishment Committee ; and the District Superintendent of Education being its Member Secretary has to act in accordance with the decisions of the said Committee. Earlier in some of the cases view had been taken that the said power has to be exercised by the District Superintendent of Education under the orders of the District Magistrate, but that view was taken since 1985 notification was not brought to the notice of the court and as such, view taken earlier in some of the cases should be deemed to be inoperative.

(3.) Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has assailed the impugned order on the ground that in view of the aforesaid 1985 nofification dated 11th October, 1985 it is not permissible on the part of the respondent District Superintendent of Education to pass the impugned order under the directions/permission of the District Magistrate and tberefore it should be held to be illegal and inoperative.