Back
1987 Supreme(All) 564
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.D. AGARWALA, B.N. MISRA, JJ.
Mamta Rastogi - Appellant
Versus
Regional Inspectress Of Girls Schools, Xii Region, Moradabad - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11088 of 1987
Decided on : Dec 10, 1987
Advocate appeared:
Ashok Khare
Regulation 4 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, which prohibits the appointment of a teacher who is related to a member of the Committee of Management or the Principal, does not apply retrospectively.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF HEAD MISTRESS - U. P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 - U. P. SECONDARY SERVICES COMMISSION AND SELECTION BOARDS ACT, 1982 - REGULATION 4 OF CHAPTER III - INTERPRETATION - SENIORITY - BREAK IN SERVICE - LEAVE WITHOUT PAY - APPROVAL BY MANAGEMENT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an assistant teacher in a school governed by the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U. P. Secondary Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, challenged the order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools disapproving her appointment as the officiating Principal of the school. The Regional Inspectress found that there was a break in the petitioner's service, making her junior to another teacher who was appointed as the officiating Principal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Regional Inspectress's finding of a break in service was manifestly erroneous. The petitioner had been granted leave without pay for the period in question, as evidenced by resolutions of the school's Committee of Management. The court also held that Regulation 4 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, which prohibits the appointment of a teacher who is related to a member of the Committee of Management or the Principal, does not apply retrospectively and therefore did not bar the petitioner's appointment as officiating Principal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Regional Inspectress's finding of a break in the petitioner's service was erroneous. 2. Whether Regulation 4 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act applies retrospectively.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Regional Inspectress's finding of a break in service was erroneous because the petitioner had been granted leave without pay for the period in question, as evidenced by resolutions of the school's Committee of Management. 2. The court held that Regulation 4 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act does not apply retrospectively because it was clarified by a Government Order that the Regulation does not apply to cases where a person acquires relationship with the member of the management or the Principal or the Headmaster subsequent to his or her appointment in the same institution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools disapproving the petitioner's appointment as officiating Principal, and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Inspectress to appoint the petitioner as officiating Principal until a regular appointment is made by the Secondary Education Services Commission.
S. D. Agarwala, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the petitioner's functioning as the Head Mistress of Hira Devi Tota Ram Kanya Uchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhajoi, District Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the School) and to pay her salary.
2. The petitioner, Smt. Mamta Rastogi was appointed as an Asstt. Teacher in the L. T. Grade in the School. It is not disputed that the School is governed by the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U. P. Secondary Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982.
The petitioner was appointed on 1st July, 1965 on probation for a period of one year. This appointment was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls' Schools, Bareilly by means of an order dated 15th December, 1965.
3. The respondent no. 4, Smt. Vijai Luxmi Saxena was also appointed as an Asstt. Teacher in the L. T. Grade on 8th July, 1971. This appointment was also approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls' School, Bareilly by an order dated 18th November, 1971.
4. Both the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 had been working in the School The dispute arose because the permanent Head Mistress ceased to exist and as such the seniormost teacher of the School had to take over as an officiating Principal till a permanent Principal was selected by the Services Commission.
By a resolution dated 30th May, 1987, the Committee of Management of the School resolved that the petitioner was the seniormost teacher and as such, was entitled to function as the officiating Principal of the School. A copy of this resolution was sent by the Manager of the School to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by his letter dated 1st June, 1987 for her approval. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by an order dated 26th June, 1987 did not approve the resolution passed by the Committee of Management on the ground that, in her opinion, the petitioner was not senior to respondent no. 4. In consequence there of, respondent no. 4 started functioning as the officiating Principal of the School. It is this order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 26th June, 1987, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Initially when the petition was filed, the petitioner sought a relief to the effect that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondent no. 4 not to interfere in the petitioner's functioning as the Head Mistress of the School. In the counter affidavit to the petition, a copy of the order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 26th June, 1987 was filed as C. A. 6, by virtue of which, the resolution of the Committee of Management holding the petitioner as senior, was disapproved and as such, the petitioner further amended the petition and added a relief in the petition to the effect that the order dated 26th June, 1987 passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools be also quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 26th June, 1987 passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools is manifestly erroneous. The finding recorded by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to the effect that there was a break in service, was patently erroneous and as such, the order dated 26th June, 1987 is liable to be quashed.
In the impugned order, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools has not given any reason as to why there has been a break in service in the case of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed on probation on 1st July, 1965. The appointment was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on 15th December, 1965. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, the reason for holding that there was break in service has been given in paragraph 2. In thi
