2005 Supreme(All) 1050
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tarun Agarwala, J.
Prakash Shiv Pratap Dwivedi
Versus
District Inspector of Schools, U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission
Writ Petition 13853 of 1987
Decided On : 27 May 2005
Writ Petition 11273 Of 2004
P.N.Saxena, Puneet Kumar Gupta, Rishikesh Tripathi, WAJAHAT HUSAIN KHAN,
The U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board has the power to modify or alter proposed punishments and was justified in reducing the punishment of termination to stoppage of two increments.
Headnote:
Teacher - Appointment and Termination - U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971, Criminal Procedure Code, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act 1982 - The court discussed the appointment and termination of a teacher in an intermediate college, the legality of suspension orders, and the authority of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board in approving or disapproving the punishment proposed by the Committee of Management.
Fact of the Case:
A teacher was appointed on an adhoc basis and his services were terminated. Subsequently, he filed a complaint alleging forgery in his Service Book. The Committee of Management suspended him, issued a charge sheet, and eventually terminated his services. The U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board disapproved the termination and imposed a minor penalty. The teacher filed writ petitions challenging various orders and seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the teacher was not entitled to the relief claimed, as his appointment had ended and he did not work during a certain period. The court also held that the Board had the power to modify or alter the proposed punishment and was justified in reducing the punishment of termination to stoppage of two increments.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the teacher's appointment and termination, the authority of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, and the justification of the proposed punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the teacher's appointment had ended as per the terms and conditions, and he was not entitled to salary for the period he did not work. The court also determined that the Board had the power to modify the proposed punishment and was justified in reducing the punishment of termination to stoppage of two increments.
Final Decision: The court dismissed one writ petition, dismissed two writ petitions as infructuous, allowed one writ petition, and dismissed another writ petition. The teacher's services were deemed regularized, and he was entitled to full salary from a certain date.
( 1 ) A clear vacancy of a teacher in Commerce in L. T. Grade arose in D. A. V. Intermediate college, Banda. The Committee of Management appointed Sri Prakash Dwivedi on 1. 3. 1986 on an adhoc basis up to the period 20. 5. 1986 or till such time as a regular appointee of the commission was appointed, whichever was earlier. This appointment of Sri Prakash Dwivedi was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. The appointment of Sri Prakash Dwivedi came to an end on 20. 5. 1986, even though, no regular appointment was made by the commission. According to Sri Prakash Dwivedi, when the college re-opened after the vacation, the Committee of Management requested him to continue and therefore Sri Prakash Dwivedi, continued to teach, but the salary was not paid. It transpires that the Committee of Management by a letter dated 16. 8. 1986 again sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools for making an adhoc appointment which was granted by an order dated 29. 8. 1986. On this basis, the post was advertised on 9. 10. 1986 and Sri Prakash Dwivedi was again selected. The management sought approval of this appointment which remained pending before the District Inspector of schools. In the meanwhile, Sri Prakash Dwivedi filed writ petition No. 6704 of 1987 praying for a writ of mandamus directing the. District Inspector of Schools to treat Sri Prakash Dwivedi as continuous in service till his services were terminated in accordance with law or till a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board joins the said post. Sri Prakash Dwivedi further prayed that the salary should also be paid to him till a regularly selected candidate was appointed by the Commission. This petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself without inviting any counter affidavit either from the District Inspector of Schools or from the Committee of management. It was contended in the said writ petition that even though his appointment came to an end on 20. 5. 1986 but he continued to work on the request of the Committee of management on the re-opening of the institution and that his salary from 21. 5. 1986 onwards was not paid. This Court by an exparte judgment dated 9. 7. 1987 disposed of the writ petition at the initial stage itself, without inviting a counter affidavit either from the District Inspector of schools or from the Committee of Management, and, directed the District Inspector of Schools to reconsider the case of the petitioner with regard to the payment of salary, in the event, the services of Sri Prakash Dwivedi had not been terminated in accordance with law and, that no selection of a teacher had been made by the Commission. Based on the aforesaid direction, the district Inspector of Schools considered the matter and by an order dated 29. 6. 1987 rejected the representation of Sri Prakash Dwivedi. The District Inspector of Schools held that the appointment of Sri Prakash Dwivedi was purely on an adhoc basis which came to an end on 20. 5. 1986 and which was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. The District Inspector of Schools further held that after reopening of the institution after the summer vacation, Sri Prakash Dwivedi did not attend the institution and, therefore, was not entitled for the salary from the period 20. 5. 1986 onwards. This order was challenged by Sri prakash Dwivedi by means of writ petition No. 13853 of 1987 which was entertained and an interim order dated 22. 7. 1987 was passed staying the operation of the order of the District inspector of Schools. This Court further directed the District Inspector of Schools to pay the salary w. e. f. 20. 5. 1986. Subsequently, the interim order dated 22. 7. 1987 was modified to the effect that Sri Prakash Dwivedi shall not be entitled for the salary for the period during which he had not worked in the institution. Based on the interim orders, Sri Prakash Dwivedi was allowed to join the institution w. e. f. 24. 11.