HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45012 of 2014 Petitioner :- The C/M Shri Gandhi Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal,Radha Kant Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Shukla,K. Shahi Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is a Committee of Management of Sri Gandhi Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Inter college), Malhausi, Barthana, Etawah (for short 'the College'). Its manager has joined the present writ petition as petitioner no. 2.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah (BSA/Respondent no. 3) dated 21.7.2014, whereby the proposal of the committee of management for suspension of its Head Master Sri Kailash Nath Tripathi (Respondent no. 5) has been disapproved and certain directions have been issued in respect of payment of salary of some Assistant Teachers of the college.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the aforesaid college is a recognized under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short 'the Act'). In this college, the education is imparted up to 12th standard, but it receives grant-in-aid only up to level of Junior High School. Thus the provisions of the Act regularly framed thereon and UP Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (for short 'Act, 1978') are applicable.
The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S.K.S. Paliwal is that the college is governed by the provisions of the Act and is recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education and the BSA has no authority to deal with the suspension of teachers of some of the institutions. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered in Special Appeal No. 25 of 2006; Smt. Manju Awasthi and others Vs State of UP and others.
I have heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned senior counsel and Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for respondent no. 5, Sri K. Sahi, lerned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
In view of the facts, it is evident that in this case purely the question of law is involved. Learned counsel for the respondent state that he does not want to file any counter affidavit. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of in terms of the Rules of the Court.
It is admitted that the college is governed under the provisions of UP the Act and is recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. The college receives grant-in-aid only up to the level of Junior High School. Thus the BSA has his jurisdiction only in respect of payment of salary and not in the other matters.
The petitioner has suspended respondent no. 5 and the papers relating to his suspension has been sent to the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah (the DIOS) for his approval, which is still pending for consideration before the DIOS. In the case of Smt. Manju Awasthi (Supra), this Court has taken a view that in respect of suspension of any employee of the recognized institutions, the BSA has no jurisdiction. He has jurisdiction only in respect of payment of salary and the DIOS has jurisdiction in respect of certain other matters and all the matters are governed under the provisions of the Act except salary as Junior High School and Inter Section of the college does not receive aid from the State Fund, and therefore the provisions of Act, 1978 are not applicable to such institutions. Accordingly, the order passed by the BSA disapproving the suspension of respondent no. 5 is without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside.
It is averred in paragraph-7 (f) of the writ petition that some other teachers are working as Assistant Teachers in the college and now they are getting salary regularly in pursuance of the order of the Court. In view of the stated facts, the order of the BSA dated 21.7.2014 is set aside.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 Sri Ajay Bhanot submits that since the period of suspension order has lapsed on 19.7.2014 and is become inoperative, and respondent no. 5 is now entitled for the salary. Be that as it may. Respondent no. 5 may move an application before the appropriate authority for payment of his salary.
The petitioners are also at liberty to make appropriate application before the DIOS to consider the Management's paper for approval of suspension order of Respondent no. 5.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.9.2014 SKS