Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
C/M Shiraze Hind Inter College And Another – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A No.9763 of 2021
Decided on : 30-03-2022
termination - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Section 16(G)(7), U.P. Act No.24 of 1971, U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 - Sections 379, 419, 420 and 506 I.P.C. - Summary: The court discussed the applicability of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 to a minority college and the jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools in interfering with the termination of an employee. The court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Committee of Management St. John Inter College Vs. Girdhari Singh and Others, 2001 (4) SCC 296, and held that the District Inspector of School had no jurisdiction to interfere with the power of administration of a minority institution in taking disciplinary action against their staff.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Committee of Management of a minority college, terminated the service of respondent no.4, an Assistant Teacher, due to his involvement in groupism and politics, which affected the students' studies. The respondent no.4 challenged the termination, and the District Inspector of Schools stayed the termination order and directed the petitioner to submit salary bills of respondent no.4.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to interfere with the power of administration of a minority institution in taking disciplinary action against their staff.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools in interfering with the termination of an employee of a minority college.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Committee of Management St. John Inter College Vs. Girdhari Singh and Others, 2001 (4) SCC 296, and held that the District Inspector of School had no jurisdiction to interfere with the power of administration of a minority institution in taking disciplinary action against their staff.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order staying the termination and directed respondent no.4 to pursue his remedy available under the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri S.K. Om, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by respondent no.3 by which he has stayed the order of termination of respondent no.4 subject to the decision of Criminal Case No.141 of 2020, under Sections 379, 419, 420 and 506 I.P.C. and directed the petitioner to submit salary bills of respondent no.4.
3. The petitioner is Committee of Management of Shiraze Hind Inter College, Murki, Kerakat, District Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as 'college'). The said college is recognized and aided intermediate college governed by the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1921') and also U.P. Act No.24 of 1971. The petitioner claims that the college is a minority college and the provision of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1982') is not applicable to the college being minority college.
4. The respondent no.4-Ashutosh Kumar Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 04.08.2010 in the college. The respondent no.4 failed to discharge his duties properly as he was involved in groupism, politics and also trying to control the management of the college which effected the study of the students and future of the students of the college was at stake.
5. The respondent no.4 was issued a show cause notice by the petitioner which was replied by the respondent no.4 on 10.02.2020. The reply of respondent no.4 was placed before the petitioner for consideration. The petitioner found the reply of respondent no.4 to the show cause notice unsatisfactory and consequently, suspension order dated 17.02.2020 was issued against respondent no.4.
6. Thereafter, disciplinary committee on 05.05.2020 issued charge sheet against the respondent no. 4 levelling six charges, which reads as under;-
^^vr% vkids fo:) tkap mijkar vkjksi i= fuEufyf[kr fcUnqvksa ij fn;k tkrk gSA
¼1½ vkids dk;Zdky esa fo|ky;¼'khjkts fgUn b.Vj dkyst eqdhZ] dsjkdr] tksuiqj½ dh lk[k lekt esa fxjh ,oa fo|ky;] fo|ky; u jgdj jktuhfr dk vMMk vkSj ,d vU; lŒvŒeksŒ jkQs ds lkFk vkidk /kuksiktZu dk vMMk cudj jg x;kA
¼2½ vkids vkSj vU; laŒvŒeksŒ jkQs }kjk Nk=ks dks dksfpax vkSj V;w'ku iढ+kus ds fy, mRizsfjr fd;k tkrk gS bldks ysdj Nk=ks dks ekjk ihVk Hkh tkrk gSA vkids bl fØ;kdyki ls fo|ky; ls Nk=ksa dk iyk;u rsth ls gks jgk gSA
¼3½ vkids fØ;kdyki ,oa laŒvŒeksŒjkQs ds lkFk xqVckth djds fo|ky; dh O;oLFkk ij vf/kdkj tekus gsrq izca/k lfefr ds lkFk uwjk dq'rh djus ds O;LFk jgrs gSAa
¼4½ vkidks fnuakd 04-02-2020 dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl dk tokc desVh dks u nsdj vkius myVs desVh ls gh loky iwN fy;s blls izrhr gksrk gS fd vki ncax] vuq'kklughu vkSj ljd'k fdLe ds O;fDr gS vkSj vkidk vlkekftd rRoks ls Hkh xBtksM gSA a
¼5½ vki }kjk ckj&ckj 'kklu&iz'kklu dks xqejkg djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k ftlls fo|ky; dks dkQh vkfFkZd o lkekftd uqdlku mBkuk iM+kA
¼6½ fo|ky; esa iBu ikBu dk;Z esa :fp ugh nsrs gSA eksckby ij ^icth^ xse esa O;Lr jgrs gSA^^
7. The respondent no.4 submitted reply to the aforesaid charge sheet on 09.05.2020. The respondent no.4 was aware of the fact that college was minority college and Section 16(G)(7) of the Act, 1921 is not applicable yet he wrote a letter dated 11.05.2020 to respondent no.3-District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur.
8. On receiving the letter of respondent no.4, the respondent no.3-District Inspector of School passed an order dated 11.05.2020 directing the petitioner to submit salary bills of respondent no.4 as the suspension order became inoperative on expiry of 60 days in absence of approval of respondent no.3 in view of Section 16 (G) (7) of the Act, 1921.
9. In the reply to the charge sheet, the respondent no.4 denied all the charges levelled against him. However, disciplinary committee did not find the reply of respondent no.4 satisfactory and according
Regulation 101 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 applies to minority institutions, mandating prior approval from the DIOS for non-teaching staff appointments to ensure compliance with stat....
The judgment established the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976 to minority institutions and clarified the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear second appeals. It a....
The eligibility criteria for appointment as an Officiating/Incharge Principal of an Intermediate College recognized and governed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The right of minority institutions to establish and administer educational institutions includes the right to appoint staff, which cannot be restricted by government regulations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a minority institution is governed by some provisions of the Act and Rules, and the prior approval from the competent authority for terminatio....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
