Back
1970 Supreme(Pat) 146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
B.N. Jha, J.
The Managing Committee of Arrah Town Higher Secondary School Through Shri J.N. Sahay - Appellants
Vs.
The President, Board of Secondary Education and 3 Others - Respondent
C.W.J.C. No. 859 of 1968
Decided On: 28.09.1970
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Basudeva Prasad and K.N. Keshava
For Respondents/Defendant: R.P. Katriar, Govt. Pleader No. 1, Anand Prasad Sinha and Shashank Kumar Singh
The President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, is a quasi-judicial authority and has to act as such in the matter of appeal by the Managing Committee against the disapproval of the District Education Officer's recommendation for the appointment of a Principal.
Headnote:
NATURAL JUSTICE - APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL - APPROVAL BY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER - APPEAL TO PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION - HEARING OF APPELLANT - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - RE-ADVERTISEMENT FOR APPOINTMENT - QUASHING OF ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Managing Committee of a school, challenged the order passed by the President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, dismissing their appeal against the disapproval of the District Education Officer's recommendation for the appointment of a Principal. The petitioner contended that the order was violative of the principles of natural justice as the President did not hear them before passing the order and that it proceeded on irrelevant considerations.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the President's order was violative of the principles of natural justice as he did not hear the petitioner before passing the order. The court also held that the President's decision was based on irrelevant considerations, such as the Managing Committee's disobedience of the District Education Officer's direction to allow the officiating Principal to continue in office.
Issues: 1. Whether the President's order was violative of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the President's decision was based on irrelevant considerations?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the President's order was violative of the principles of natural justice as he did not hear the petitioner before passing the order. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Brajlal Manilal and Co. V. Union of India and another (A.I.R. 1964 SC 1943) and the Patna High Court's decision in M/s. Hindusthan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. V. Superintendent of Central Excise, Ranchi and another (A.I.R. 1966 Pat 248) to hold that the President, in the matter of appeal by the Managing Committee, is a quasi-judicial authority and has to act as such. 2. The court held that the President's decision was based on irrelevant considerations, such as the Managing Committee's disobedience of the District Education Officer's direction to allow the officiating Principal to continue in office. The court held that the President's decision was contrary to the provisions of the Code and is violative of the principles of the natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the President's order, and directed the President to hear the appeal of the petitioner himself after giving full opportunity to the parties concerned.
B.N. Jha, J.
1. The only question to be decided in this writ application is whether the ORDER :passed by the President Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, (Annexure 22) on an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 322(5) of the Bihar Education Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") could be sustained in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ORDER :suffers from two infirmities, namely, (i) that is violative of the principles of natural justice because the President while passing this ORDER :did not hear the petitioner and (ii) that it proceeds on irrelevant considerations not germane to the enquiry. In my opinion, the contentions of learned counsel are well-founded and must be accepted.
2. Shri R.N. Lal, the permanent Principal of the Arrah Town Higher Secondary School retired on November 7, 1964. By way of stop-gap arrangement Shri Onkar Prasad, respondent no. 4, took charge as officiating Principal of the school. The post was subsequently advertised and applications were invited. The Managing Committee selected Shri Anjani Kumar Sinha for appointment as Principal but the District Education Officer, Shahabad, respondent no. 3, did not give his approval to this appointment under Rule 322(5) of the Code and directed the Managing Committee that the appointment should be made on fresh advertisement. He further observed that the Education Department was of the view that someone from the school staff itself should be appointed as Principal. It is not necessary to refer to various correspondences which took place between the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school and the District Education Officer in connection with the appointment of permanent Principal of the school. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Education Officer wanted that Shri Onkar Prasad should be appointed as Principal and for that purpose he was putting all obstacles in the way of appointment of some other persons as the Principal of the school. For the purposes of this writ application it is not necessary for me to make any observation in this connection.
3. As directed by the District Education Officer, fresh advertisement was made and the Managing Committee interviewed the candidates on July 22, 1967 in the school premises. Respondent no. 4 was also one of the candidates. The Managing Committee prepared a panel of three persons in ORDER :of preference, namely, (i) Shri Anandpati Sahay, (ii) Shri M.M. Kant and (iii) Shri Anjani Kumar Sinha, all teachers of the school and forwarded the same with all relevant informations and documents to the District Education Officer on July 31, 1967. The case of the petitioner is that the Managing Committee considered fully the case of Shri Onkar Prasad, respondent no. 4 and Shri Anjani Kumar Sinha while making the recommendation for the post of Principal of the school. The letter of the Managing Committee dated August 16, 1967 (Annexure 6) to the District Education Officer, Shahabad, was sent on an enquiry from the District Education Officer as to whether a disciplinary action had been taken against Shri Onkar Prasad since his appointment as officiating Principal. From a perusal of his letter it appears that the allegations as made by the Managing Committee against Shri Onkar Prasad and in a subsequent letter by the Managing Committee to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Bihar dated September 6, 1967 (Annexure 10), are serious and if they are true, there could not be any denial of the fact that the Managing Committee was justified in excluding his name from the panel of the names prepared for appointment of the permanent Principal of the school. It also further appears that a proceeding had been started by the Managing Committee against Shri Onkar Prasad for various acts of omission, not necessary to be mentioned here, and after enquiry the Managing Committee found those charges correct.
4. On receipt of the recommendatio
