Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
N.K. Mitra, CJ., M. Katju, J.
PRINCIPAL, RASTRIYA INTER COLLEGE, MAHRAJGANJ - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, MAHRAJGANJ - Respondents
Special Appeal 1012 Of 1999
Decided On : 02/04/2000
( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 10. 9. 1999. We have carefully perused the said judgment and find no infirmity in the same.
( 2 ) THE respondent No. 3 in this appeal was a Daftary (peon) in the Rastriya Inter College, Bali nichlaul. district Mahrajganj and he was dismissed by the Principal by order dated 8. 7. 1999 but the said order was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 23/28. 8. 1999. Against that order of the District Inspector of Schools, the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment of the learned single judge.
( 3 ) THE short question in this case is whether prior approval/ permission from the District inspector of Schools is necessary before dismissing a Class IV employee.
( 4 ) A learned single Judge of this Court (Honble Alok Chakrabarti, J.) in Daya Shanker Tewari v. Principal and others, 1998 (2) UPLBEC 1101, has held that such prior approval is necessary. The learned single Judge has gone into the matter in great detail and has examined the relevant provisions in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act as well as Regulations 31 and 100 of the regulations made under the aforesaid Act.
( 5 ) WE are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of the learned single Judge in Daya shanker Tewaris case. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Magadh Ram Yadav v. Dy. Director of Education and others. 1979 ALJ 1351. which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is, in our opinion, not applicable as it has not considered Regulations 31 and 100 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Regulation.
( 6 ) IN view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
