Allahabad High Court
Smt. Arpita Gupta vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 August, 2012
Bench: V.K. Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40831 of 2012
Petitioner :- Smt. Arpita Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Kumar Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.R. Singh
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Sri S.R. Singh, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 7.
Each one of the respondents is accorded six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.
List thereafter.
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that she had been selected as Assistant teacher by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. Petitioner submits has she has been harassed and victimized in the hands of the Committee of Management as well as Principal of the institution and further submits that disciplinary proceeding was undertaken against her and resolution had been passed placing her under suspension. The resolution placing the petitioner under suspension has been considered by the District Inspector of Schools and in exercise of authority vested under Section 16G (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the District ?nspector of Schools has proceeded to disapprove the resolution of suspension. Petitioner submits that against the order of the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the resolution of suspension, the Committee of Management of the institution concerned preferred writ petition No.43123 of 2011 before this Court, and therein no interim order has been passed. Petitioner submits that once there is no valid order of suspension approved by the District Inspector of Schools, then the petitioner has every authority to function in the institution as assistant teacher and receive salary, therefore, the petitioner insisted for functioning and release of salary in her favour, but the petitioner was not permitted to perform and discharge her duties. Even the District Inspector of Schools instead of taking appropriate remedial measure against the Committee of Management has transgressed and over stepped in his jurisdiction by proceeding to attach the petitioner in another recognized institution. However, the petitioner did not join the said institution, as such thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools on 24.02.2012 passed an order to the effect that the petitioner has failed to comply with the order. Petitioner submits that only under Section 16EE of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, only surplus staff can be adjusted, otherwise no such exercise is permissible. Thus, in the present case, the District Inspector of
Schools has totally transgressed and overstepped in exercise of his jurisdiction. Petitioner submits that even the Director of Education under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has informed that there is no such provision of attachment, as has been sought to be done in the present case. Petitioner submits that in this way the orders dated 25.01.2012 and 24.02.2012 are bad in the eyes of law.
Prima facie the argument advanced, appears to have some substance and requires consideration by this Court. In view of this the operation of the orders dated 25.01.2012 and 24.02.2012 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar is directed to be kept in abeyance.
Further since the resolution placing the petitioner under suspension has been disapproved and in the writ petition filed against the same, there is no interim order, the petitioner is entitled to function in the institution and receive salary till writ petition No.43123 of 2011 is not allowed and the suspension order is approved or till final decision under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 is not taken. In view of this, the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and the Committee of Management of Gyan Bharti Girls Inter College, Kanpur Nagar are directed to ensure that the petitioner is permitted to function as assistant teacher in Gyan Bharti Girls Inter College, Kanpur and paid her salary till writ petition No.43123 of 2011 is not allowed and the suspension order is approved or till final decision under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 is taken by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board.
Order Date :- 22.8.2012
SRY
