Back
1996 Supreme(All) 259
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.P.Srivastava
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT GIRLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BINDRA BAZAR AZAMGARH
Versus
LEKHADHIKARI KARYALAYA ZILA BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI AZAMGARH
Decided On : 29 February 1996
C. M. W. P. No. 17935 of 1995 connected with C. M. W. P. No. 5283 of 1995
H.N.TRIPATHI,
The District Basic Education Officer has no jurisdiction to interfere in the order of suspension pending contemplated disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of a junior high school.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - SUSPENSION OF TEACHER - JURISDICTION - U. P. RECOGNISED BASIC SCHOOLS (JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL) (RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF TEACHERS) RULES, 1978 - U. P. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL (PAYMENT OF SALARY TO TEACHERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES) ACT, 1978 - DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER - JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE IN ORDER OF SUSPENSION PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - HELD, NO JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a committee of management of a junior high school, challenged the orders of the District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) suspending the headmistress of the school and directing the payment of her salary through a joint account operated by the Lekha Adhikari. The DBEo had passed these orders after holding an inquiry and finding that the charges against the headmistress were baseless and that the suspension was mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the DBEo had no jurisdiction to interfere in the order of suspension pending contemplated disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of the junior high school. The court relied on the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Shyama Vanna v. Basic Education Board U. P. Allahabad, which held that Rule 15 of the U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 does not require prior approval in writing by the Education Officer before ordering suspension. The court also held that the provisions of the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 do not deal with the conditions of service of teachers and employees, and therefore cannot be used to justify the DBEo's interference in the order of suspension.
Issues: 1. Whether the DBEo had jurisdiction to interfere in the order of suspension pending contemplated disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of the junior high school? 2. Whether the provisions of the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 deal with the conditions of service of teachers and employees?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the DBEo had no jurisdiction to interfere in the order of suspension pending contemplated disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of the junior high school, relying on the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Shyama Vanna v. Basic Education Board U. P. Allahabad. 2. The court held that the provisions of the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 do not deal with the conditions of service of teachers and employees, and therefore cannot be used to justify the DBEo's interference in the order of suspension.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders of the DBEo and directed the committee of management to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the headmistress within a period of four months, failing which the order of suspension dated 25-4-1994 passed against the said Head Mistress shall stand revoked.
Girls Junior High School, Bindra, Bazar Azamgarh is a Junior High School recognised under the provisions of u p" Basic Education Act, 1972 and falls within the purview of U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and Employees) Act 1978 Smt Shanti Vishwakarma, the respondent No. 3 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5283 of 1995 held the post of Head Mistress of the aforesaid Junior High School,
the Committee of Management running and managing the aforesaid institution issued an order dated 25-4-1994 suspending her with immediate effect pending contemplated disciplinary enquiry against her The District Basic Education Officer, however, vide his order dated 30-1 1995 after holding an enquiry himself, being of the view that the charges levelled against the Head Mistress had no force and the order of suspension was baseless and further there was no occasion for the diminution in-emoluments to which the Head Mistress was entitled to, directed the Management in ensure that Smt. Shanti Vishwakama, the Head Mistress was paid fun salary admissible to a Head Mistress.
2. On 31-1-1995, the District Basic Education Officer passed another order of consequential nature whereunder taking into consideration the implications arising under the order dated 30-1-1995 he refused to r and attest the signature of Smt. Prabhawati Devi as acting Head Miss of the Junior High School Mistress
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the committee of Management filed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 583 of 1995 seeking the quashing of the order dated 30-1-1995 and 31-1-1995. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the District Basic Education officer issued an order dated 22-4- 1995 seeking to imleament the earlier order dated 30-1-1955. The initiation of the proceedings under Section 3 (3) of the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 was recommended sending its information to the Assistant Director (Basic) VII Region, Gorakhpur and a direction was issued to the Manager, Girls Junior High School, Bindra Bazar Azamgarh requiring him not to interfere in the functioning of Smt. Shanti vishwakarma as Head Mistress of the Girls Junior High School to question. Subsequent to the aforesaid order the Lekha Adhikari issued a letter dated 26- 5-1995 informing the management of the Junior High School that pursuant to the order dated 22-4- 1995, the payment of salary etc, to Smt. Shanti Vishwakarma and other teachers/employees of the Junior High School shall be made under the signatures of Lekhadhikari. This order was in fact an order for operating the joint account maintained, under the pro visions of U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees], Act, 1978 singly by the Lekha Adhikari, a copy of the said order was also sent to the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) VII, Region, Gorakhpur.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the Committee of Management of Girls Junior High School filed other Civil Misc. Writ Peti tion No. 17935 of 1995 seeking the quashing of the orders dated 22-4- 1995 and 26-5-1995. It has further been prayed that the respondent authority be directed not to make any payment to Smt. Shanti Vishwakarma, res pondent No. 3 by operation of the joint account singly.
5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for Smt. Shanti Vishwakarma as well as the learned Standing Counsel represent ing the District Inspector of Schools and other respondent had
jointly requested that considering; the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the controversy involved therein both the writ petitions may be finally heard and disposed of. These writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
6. The short question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the District Basic Education Officer stands vested with any authority either under the provisions of
