Gochar krishik Inter College, District Saharanpur vs Deputy Director of Education and others

R.L. Gulati, J.

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Gocher Krishik Inter College, Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur challenging the order of respondent No. 1, Deputy Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut allowing the appeal of the 3rd respondent, Ajab Singh, whose services had been terminated by the College.

Ajab Singh was appointed as a Demonstrator in the Biology Department on August 26, 1968 on probation for one year. He had been selected for appointment by a Selection Committee of the College but it appears that the Managing Committee of the College did not pass a resolution authorising his appointment. His appointment was made by the Manager of the College subject to the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. His period of probation was to expire on August 25, 1969. The approval of his appointment by the District Inspector of Schools was received on October 1, 1968.

It has been alleged in the writ petition that during the probation period there were several complaints against him with regard to his moral character. On January 16, 1969 the Librarian of the College made a report to the Principal against his misbehaviour with a school girl. The Principal of the college made an enquiry and on being satisfied that the conduct of Ajab Singh was questionable he reported the matter to the Manager for necessary action. This report was sent on April 17, 1969. On June 9, 1969 the Manager of the College terminated his services on one month''s notice. On the same date the Managing Committee of the College approved the actions taken by the Manager. Thereupon, Ajab Singh made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur on the ground that his services had wrongly been terminated. The District Inspector of Schools after making enquiries approved the termination of his services on October 22, 1970. Against this order Ajab Singh went up in appeal before the first Respondent, the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education accepted the appeal holding that the termination of the petitioner''s services was contrary to law. The College has now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Deputy Director of Education has held that no valid termination order could be issued except with the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools as required by Section 16C(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. That provision requires that no teacher may be discharged, removed or dismissed from service or served with the notice of. termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. He rejected the plea of the College that the appointment of Ajab Singh itself was irregular and, as such, Section 16C(3) did not come into play. It was stated that under the rules no appointment letter could be issued to a teacher without the authorization of the Committee of Management and in the instant case no such authorisation had been given by the Committee of Management. On behalf of the College it has been argued that the appointment of a teacher is as much governed by the Act and the Regulations framed there under as the termination of his services. Section 16F (1) provides that no person shall be appointed as a teacher in a recognised institution unless he (a) possess the prescribed qualifications or has been exempted under subsection (1) of Section 16E (b) has been recommended by selection committee constituted under subsection (2) or (3) as the case may be, of the said section and approved, in the case of Principal, or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director, Education and in the case of a teacher by the Inspector. Section 16G(1) then provides that every person employed in a recognised institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by Regulations and any agreement between the management and such employee in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or with the Regulations shall be void. Subsection (2) of Section 16C then provides that without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by subsection (1), the Regulations may provide for

" (a) the period of probation, the conditions of confirmation and the procedure and conditions for promotion and punishment, including suspension pending enquiry and the emoluments for the period of suspension and termination of service with notice,

(b) the scales of pay and payment of salary,

(c) transfer of service from one recognized institution to another,

(d) grant of leave and provident fund and other benefits and,

(e) maintenance of record of work and service."

It, is thus clear that the conditions of service of teachers with regard to their appointments and termination is to be governed and regulated by the Regulations framed under the Act.

Chapter III of the Regulations relate to the conditions of service and has reference to Section 16C of the Act. Regulation 6 of this Chapter provides:

"6. All appointments shall be made under formal orders or letters of appointment with the sanction of the appointing authority."

The appointing authority in a recognised institution is the Committee of Management and not the Manager. In the instant case it has been alleged that no such sanction had been given by the appointing authority, namely, the Committee of Management. This averment has not been denied. In paragraph 5 of the counteraffidavit of Taradutt Garg, filed on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education it has been stated that then such an approval of the District Inspector of Schools was sought after the appointment of the teacher, the sanction of the Committee of Management can be presumed. I am afraid no such presumption can be raised. This point was specifically raised by the College before the Deputy Director of Education and it was his duty to enquire into this allegation and to give a positive finding. He has merely presumed such a sanction. No doubt the approval for appointment was obtained from the District Inspector of Schools after the appointment had already been made and that may satisfy the requirement of Section 16F but the requirements of Regulation 6 of Chapter III is wanting. In Arya Kanya Pathshala and another v. Smt. Manorama Devi Agnihotri and others, 1971 A.L.J. 983 it has been held that Section 16F(1) of the Intermediate Education Act is mandatory and not directory. If a person is appointed as the Principal of an institution without prior approval of the Regional Deputy Director of Education the appointment is in the eye of law no appointment at all. Section 16G(3) will not apply to a case where the appointment is made in breach of the provisions of Section 16F(1).

Here the appointment of A jab Singh was made contrary to Regulation 6 of Chapter III and, in my opinion, the ratio of this decision will apply to this case also. In Managing Committee Sohan Lal Higher Secondary School, Rajendra Nagar, Lucknow through its Manager v. Sheo Dutt Gupta and others, 1947 A.L.J. 465. 42 it has been merely held that Section 16G(3) (a) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act applies to a probationer and, therefore, the services of a probationer cannot be terminated unless notice of termination is served after obtaining the approval of the Inspector. To that extent the action of the Manager terminating the petitioner''s services without obtaining the prior written approval of the District Inspector of Schools may not be in accordance with law but as already pointed out above, the initial appointment of the petitioner itself was contrary to Section 16F (1) and Regulation 6 and according to the decision of this Court in the case of Arya Kanya Pathshala (supra). Section 16G (3) will not be applicable to such a case. The position is that as the petitioner''s appointment was invalid his services could be terminated without following the procedure laid down in Section 16G(3) (a).

In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed the order of the first respondent, the Deputy Director of Education, Meerut dated June 4, 1971 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) is quashed. In the circumstances I make no order as to the costs.