Dr. Ram Asrey Chaurasia vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1984 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18255 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Ram Asrey Chaurasia
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Gupta,Shesh Kumar
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.

Heard Shri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 and Shri Neeraj Tiwari for the respondent no. 4.

Pleadings between the petitioner and the contesting respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is disposed of at this stage.

Two applications for impleadment have been filed under Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, one on behalf of Shri Karan Singh, said to be the Ex-Manager of the Committee of Management through Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocate and the other on behalf of Teachers Union and two others through Shri Ajay Bhanot, Advocate.

This Court does not consider it necessary that the said applicants be impleaded as respondents in this writ petition but under the provisions of Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, learned counsel for the said applicants, namely, Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi and Shri Ajay Bhanot have also been heard in opposition of this writ petition.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Principal of the respondent-Attarra Post Graduate College Atarra, Banda in the year 2008. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order passed by the Committee of Management and since the order of termination was given effect to by the Committee of Management without seeking the approval of the Vice Chancellor as provided under section 35(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973, the petitioner approached the Vice Chancellor, who vide his order dated 19.3.2013 set aside the termination order dated 4.1.2013, said to have been passed by the President of the Committee of Management. It is noteworthy that in the meantime on 13.2.2013 on the charges of financial irregularities said to have been committed by the President of the Committee of Management i.e. Shri Karan Singh, the State of U.P. passed an order superseding the Committee of Management and appointed the District Magistrate, Banda as authorized controller. The said order was challenged by the Committee of Management in writ petition no. 11952 of 2013 in which no interim order has been granted. When this writ petition was filed, after noticing the facts of the case, this Court, on 15.4.2013, passed the following order

"The case of the petitioner is that he was a duly selected Principal by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission and had been posted in the year 2008 as Principal of Atarra Post Graduate College Atarra, Banda on permanent basis. On account of some differences between the petitioner and the then Manager of the College, the petitioner was initially suspended and later also terminated by the Committee of Management, which order was not approved by the Vice-Chancellor vide his order dated 19.3.2013, wherein, it was declared that the termination of the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of Section 35(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Pursuant to the said order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, the Regional Higher Education Officer as well as the Director of Education (Higher Education) have on 21.3.3013 and 22.3.2013 respectively directed the College to permit the petitioner to join as Principal. When the same was not done and the order of the Vice-Chancellor has also not been stayed or set aside by any competent authority or Court, the petitioner has approached this court with the prayer for a direction to the respondent no.3 to permit him to join as Principal of the College in question.

Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Neeraj Tiwari for respondent no.4. They may file counter affidavit within three weeks. The respondent no.3 is directed to permit the petitioner to join on the post of Principal of the College or the said respondents may show cause by filing the counter affidavit by the next date.

List on 6th May, 2013"

In compliance thereof an affidavit, which is described as counter affidavit, has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3-authorized controller/District Magistrate, Banda in which all that has been stated regarding non compliance of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor (whereby a direction has been issued for reinstating the petitioner as Principal) is that a review application has been filed before the Vice Chancellor on 20.3.2013 seeking review of the order dated 19.3.2013. When asked, learned standing counsel could not place before the Court any provision of law under which the order of the Vice Chancellor could be reviewed.

From the aforesaid it is absolutely clear that firstly, the order dated 4.1.2013 could not have been implemented without prior approval of the Vice Chancellor as under sub section (2) of Section 35 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973 every decision of the Management of the College to dismiss or remove a teacher or to reduce him in rank or to punish him in any other manner shall before it is communicated to him, be reported to the Vice Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice Chancellor.

Secondly, in the present case, let aside that an order of disapproval having been passed by the Vice Chancellor on 19.3.2013 on the application of the petitioner, the respondent-College also did not send the requisite papers to the Vice Chancellor for approval and had implemented the order on its own after terminating the services of the petitioner, which cannot be justified in law. Besides this, even though the termination of the petitioner could not have been implemented as the resolution was not sent for approval to the Vice Chancellor by the Committee of Management but even after the dis-approval order having been passed, the authorized controller (who is the District Magistrate, Banda) has consciously not implemented the said order taking refuge of having filed a review application without even caring to find out as to whether the review application was maintainable or not. This clearly shows total dis-respect of the provisions of law as well as the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor, which orders have to be complied with by the authorized controller.

An administrative officer, who is performing the duty of authorized controller of a College, is not above the law and is also not above the Vice Chancellor. If the law provides for a certain thing to be done in a particular manner, it ought to be done in the said manner, more so, by an administrative officer who is supposed to know the law. The authorized controller ought to have before implementing its decision, first sent the papers relating to the termination of the petitioner for approval to the Vice Chancellor, which was not done, and, thereafter, if the Vice Chancellor, at the instance of the petitioner, has dis-approved the termination and directed reinstatement of the petitioner as Principal of the College, the same ought to have been implemented and carried out forthwith by the authorized controller.

As such, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondent no. 3-Authorized Controller, Atarra Post Graduate College, Atarra, District Banda/District Magistrate, Banda to implement the order of Vice Chancellor dated 19.3.2013 forthwith. We further direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P.Lucknow for inquiring into the matter as to why the orders of the Vice Chancellor have not been complied with by the authorized controller, who in the present case is the District Magistrate, Banda. After seeking an explanation from the respondent no. 3 and holding an inquiry in the matter, the Chief Secretary shall pass appropriate orders in the matter with regard to the functioning of the authorized controller of the College. Report in this regard be sent to the Court within two months.

No order as to cost.

Order Date :- 13.5.2013

o.k.

(B. Amit Sthalekar, J.) (Vineet Saran, J.)