Back
1993 Supreme(All) 391
High Court Of Allahabad
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.
Pramodini Agarwal
Vs.
Regional Inspectress Of Girls Schools, Bareilly
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30291 of 1993
Decided on: 23rd August, 1993
Advocate Appeared:
Ajeet Kumar, R.G. Padia, K.L. Grover, R.N. Singh, A.C. Nigam
Prior approval from the competent authority is mandatory before any order having the effect of reduction in emoluments or rank can take effect under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commissioned Selection Board Act, 1982.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSIONED SELECTION BOARD ACT, 1982 - SECTION 21 - U.P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 - SECTION 16(G)(3) - AD-HOC PRINCIPAL - APPOINTMENT - APPROVAL - REDUCTION IN RANK - EMOLUMENTS - PRIOR APPROVAL - MANDATORY - COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - SUSPENSION - LEGAL EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the senior-most teacher in the college, was asked to take charge as principal after the retirement of the previous principal. She continued in this capacity until a resolution was passed by the Committee of Management leveling charges against her and relieving her of the office of principal. The petitioner challenged this resolution and the subsequent order relieving her of her duties as principal, arguing that prior approval from the competent authority was required under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commissioned Selection Board Act, 1982, or Section 16(g)(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was working in the capacity of an ad-hoc principal and that the impugned order dated 28-6-1992, which relieved her of her duties as principal, amounted to a reduction in rank and emoluments. The court further held that prior approval from the competent authority was mandatory under Section 21 of the Act and that the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was not justified in not taking any decision on the matter.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was appointed as an ad-hoc principal. 2. Whether prior approval from the competent authority was required before relieving the petitioner of her duties as principal. 3. Whether the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was justified in not taking any decision on the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was appointed as an ad-hoc principal based on the resolution passed by the Committee of Management and her subsequent assumption of duties as principal. 2. The court held that prior approval from the competent authority was mandatory under Section 21 of the Act, which prohibits any order having the effect of reduction in emoluments or rank from taking effect until it is approved by the competent authority. 3. The court held that the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was not justified in not taking any decision on the matter and should have either accorded approval herself or forwarded the papers to the Commission for necessary approval.
Final Decision: The court directed that the petitioner be treated as an ad-hoc principal of the College and that her functioning as such shall not be disturbed on the basis of the impugned resolution and order until duly approved by the competent authority. The court also directed the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to proceed with the communication sent to her by the Committee of Management in accordance with law.
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.
1. In this writ petition order was passed on 13-8-1993. However, before the order could be signed, Shri R.N. Singh learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 5 appeared and requested that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. Learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel also agreed that the petition may be disposed of finally. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, hence the petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that vacancy for the post of head of the institution, namely Sahu Gopinath Kanya Inter College, Shyam Ganj, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the College) arose on 1-7-1992 on account of retirement of Smt. Vimla Rani Saxena on 30-6-1992. Petitioner Smt. Pramodini Agarwal, senior-most teacher in the college was asked by Committee of Management by resolution dated 5-12-1991 and latter dated 9-12-1991, which are annexures 2 and 1 respectively to the writ petition, to take charge from the retiring principal. Petitioner consequently took charge and started discharging all the functions of principal of the College from 1-7-1992. She continued in the office in this capacity throughout. However, the Committee of Management on 22-6-1992 passed a resolution, which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. By this resolution certain charges were levelled against the petitioner and ultimately it was concluded that positioned should be relieved of the office of principal and charge be given to respondent no. 4 Smt. Shashi Prabha. On the basis of this resolution, order dated 28-6-1993 was served on the petitioner by registered post, which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It would be appropriate to reproduce the order served on the petitioner which is as under :-
"Prabandh Samity ki baithak dinank 27-6-93 me yah nirnaya iiya gaya hai ki apko arop patra dekar abshyakata anusar uski janch karai jaye. Samity ne yiha bhi nirnaya liya hai ki prastabit janch ki abadhi me apka karyabahak Pradhanacharaya pad par bane rahana uchir no hoga. Atah apko tatkal prabhab se janch puma hone tak karyabahak Pradhanacharya pad so mukta karne ka nirnaya liya gaya hai taki nispaksh janch ho sake. Ap apne mul pad angreji prabakta par karyarat rahengi. Apki bartaman betan woh betanman par koi pratikul prabhab nehi parega. Atah ap apne karyabahak Pradhanacharaya ka bhar Srimati Shahsi Prabha (Prabakta) ko tatkal swanp den."
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the resolution dated 27-6-1993 and the order dated 28-6-1993 and also for a direction restraining the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as principal of the College. It has also been prayed that petitioner be paid salary of the office of principal with effect from 1-7-1992. It has also been prayed that order be passed directing respondent no. 6 to appoint managing director or authorised controller as there is no committee of management.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the impugned resolution and the order dated 28-6-1993 amounted to punishment and if could not be enforced without prior approval in view of the provisions contained in Section 21 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commissioned Selection Board Act, 1982 or Section 16(g)(3) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 whichever is applicable. Learned counsel has submitted that the requirement of prior approval is mandatory and the respondent committee of management could not relieve the petitioner of the office of principal and ask her to work on her original post of lecturer in English which amounts to reduction in rank and also amounts to reduction of emoluments.
4. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner was never appointed as ad-hoc principal under Section 18 or under the Removal of Difficulties Order, hence there was no question of any reversion It has also, been submitted th
