JUDGMENT :

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. This petition is by the minority institution challenging an order of the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur dated 16.3.2021 disapproving the proposed suspension of private respondent as also the orders dated 28.1.2021 and 22.2.2021, which direct payment of salary to be released to the private respondent. The order disapproving the suspension dated 16.3.2021 records that the Manager of the institution had placed the private respondent under suspension on 31.12.2020, whereas the resolution of the Managing Committee to place him under suspension was passed on 3.1.2021. The Inspector, therefore, has observed that on the date of passing of the order of suspension there was no valid resolution by the Managing Committee and, therefore, the order of Manager was without jurisdiction.

2. The aforesaid order is assailed on various grounds. It is urged that being a minority institution the Inspector has no authority to disapprove the resolution for placing private respondent under suspension as the right of minority institution to manage its affairs are infringed. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in C/M Clancy Intermediate College vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Petition No. 15765 of 2016). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the order of suspension was passed by the Manager a valid resolution was passed by the Managing Committee on 3.1.2021, which has the effect of ratifying the earlier order of Manager. This resolution was also on record before the Inspector.

3. In support of plea of ratification Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in National Institute of Technology and Others vs. Pannalal Chaudhary, AIR 2015 SC 2846, in which Supreme Court has observed as under in Para 34 to 40:

''34. That apart, the issue in question could be examined from yet another angle by applying the law relating to ''Ratification'' which was not taken note of by the High Court.

35. The expression ''Ratification'' means ''the making valid of an act already done''. This principle is derived from the Latin maxim ''ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur'' meaning thereby ''a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act.'' It is for this reason; the ratification assumes an invalid act, which is retrospectively validated.

36. The expression ''ratification'' was succinctly defined by the English Court in one old case, Hartman v. Hornsby, 142 Mo 368 44 SW 242, 244 as under:

''Ratification'' is the approval by act, word, or conduct, of that which was attempted (of accomplishment), but which was improperly or unauthorisedly performed in the first instance.'

37. The law of ratification was applied by this Court in Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta vs. U.O.I. (1973) 2 SCC 543. In that case, the Chairman of the Board of Directors had terminated the services of the General Manager of a Company pursuant to a resolution taken by the Board at a meeting. It was not in dispute that the meeting had been improperly held and consequently the resolution passed in the said meeting terminating the services of General Manager was invalid. However, the Board of Directors then convened subsequent meeting and in this meeting affirmed the earlier resolution, which had been passed in improper meeting. On these facts, the Court held,

Even if it be assumed that the telegram and the letter terminating the services of the appellant by the Chairman was in pursuance of the invalid resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 16-12-1953 to terminate his services, it would not follow that the action of the Chairman could not be ratified in a regularly convened meeting of the Board of Directors. The point is that even assuming that the Chairman was not legally authorised to terminate the services of the appellant, he was acting on behalf of the Company in doing so, because, he purported to act in pursuance of the invalid