SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(All) 2512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunil Ambwani, J.
Dinesh Bahadur Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. And Others - Respondents
C.M.W.P. No's. 560 and 7541 of 2004
Decided On : 14-05-2004

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ashok Khare and R.C. Dwivedi
For the Respondent: B.D. Mandhyan and Satish Mandhyan, S.C.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of senior most teachers for consideration by the Board for appointment as principal does not confer a right of preference for appointment, and the transfer of a Principal subject to disciplinary action is permissible under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, and the Rules made thereunder.

Headnote:

U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Transfer of Principal - U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 - Sections 10, 12, 16 - U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 - Rule 11 - Promotion of teachers - Right of senior most teachers for consideration by the Board for appointment as principal - Interpretation of proviso to Section 16 - Applicability of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to employment in recognized and aided educational institutions

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the transfer of a Principal of an educational institution and the rights of senior most teachers for consideration by the Board for appointment as principal. The Court was also called upon to decide whether the consent of the management for transfer of a Principal, who was subject to disciplinary action, was permissible in law.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the transfer of the Principal was permissible under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, and the Rules made thereunder. It also found that the right of senior most teachers for consideration by the Board for appointment as principal was not akin to promotion and did not confer a right of preference for appointment. The Court also affirmed the applicability of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to employment in recognized and aided educational institutions.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the proviso to Section 16 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, and the rights of senior most teachers for appointment as principal, as well as the permissibility of transfer of a Principal subject to disciplinary action.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the transfer of the Principal was permissible under the Act and Rules, and that the right of senior most teachers for consideration by the Board for appointment as principal did not confer a right of preference for appointment. It also affirmed the applicability of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to employment in recognized and aided educational institutions.

Final Decision: Both writ petitions challenging the transfer of the Principal and praying for quashing the attestation of his signatures as Principal were dismissed by the Court.

JUDGMENT :

Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Sri Ashok Khare assisted by Sri R. C. Dwivedi for petitioner and Sri B. D. Mandhyan assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan for respondent No. 7.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that the Panchayat Inter College, Bodarwar, District Kushi Nagar is an educational institution recognised under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The salary of teachers and other employees is paid and regulated by U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and Other Employees) Act No. 24 of 1971. Sri Krishna Murarl Shukia, the Principal of the college retired on 30.6.2002. The petitioner as a seniormost lecturer in the college was asked by the District Inspector of Schools to officiate as Principal. He started officiating as Principal w.e.f. 1.7.2002 and his signatures were attested. The last elections of the Committee of Management of the college were held in 1988. It is contended by the petitioner that thereafter no elections were held and that the same Committee of Management is continuing. There were allegations regarding financial irregularities against the Committee of Management, on which an order was passed by the State Government appointing an Administrator. Sri Pitamber Tiwarl, respondent No. 5 filed a Writ Petition No. 3195 of 2001 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court in which an interim order was passed on 1.11.2001 staying the appointment of Administrator.

3. The District Inspector of Schools, Kushi Nagar passed an order on 15.7.2002, for single operation of the accounts. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter passed another order recognising the Committee of Management of which Sri Pitamber Tiwari is the Manager, to continue to manage the institution. It appears that the management dispute is still pending but there are no specific order against the functioning of the Committee of Management of which respondent No. 5 is the Manager. It is contended that the vacancy on the post of Principal has been requisitioned to be filled up from the Board under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (In short U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982). The Board has not advertised the post so far.

4. Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, respondent No. 7 was the Principal of Marwar Inter College, Pilakhuwa, Ghaziabad. He was facing a disciplinary enquiry in which the Committee of Management of the college awarded punishment. The order of punishment was not approved by the Board. The management has filed a writ petition against the order of disapproval. He made a request for transfer to the Panchayat Inter College, Bodarwar, Kushi Nagar. The Committee of Management of both the colleges have given their consent and that by impugned order dated 2.1.2004 the Additional Director of Education (Secondary) U. P. has transferred him to Panchayat Inter College, Bodarwar, Kushi Nagar.

5. Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate appearing for the Petitioner/officiating principal, has challenged the transfer of respondent No. 7, on the ground that Section 16 of U, P. Act No. 5 of 1982, does not permit, by way of the proviso, to fill up the post of Principal by way of transfer. Section 10 (1) of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 regulate every vacancy covered by direct recruitment to be notified to the Board. Section 10 (2) of the Act further provides that the procedure of selection of candidates for direct recruitment shall be such as may be prescribed. Similarly Section 12 of the Act provides for procedure of selection by promotion. Section 12 (2) prescribes that the procedure of selection of candidates for promotion shall be such as may be prescribed. The word 'prescribed' carries the meaning of prescription of rules in exercise of these powers. The U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998, have been framed prescribing the procedure. Rule 11 (2) (b) of the 1998 Rules provides to refer the names of two senlormost teachers to be forwarded along with requisition for the post of Princi






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top