C/M, Sri Mannu Lal Sanskrit ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 1986 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42878 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M, Sri Mannu Lal Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sant Ram Sharma,Radha Kant Ojha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijesh Singh,L.P.Singh,V.B. Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

Heard Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sant Ram Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri L.P. Singh, Advocate and Sri Brijesh Singh, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.5, Sri Ved Vyas, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.2 and 3 and Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent no.1 and 4.

Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition be disposed of at this stage without calling for any further affidavit specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today by the Court.

Sri Mannu Lal Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Atarra, District Banda is a Post Graduate Degree College (hereinafter referred to as "College") affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "University"). Post of Principal of College was advertised by the Management on 06.07.2012. One of the eligibility condition mentioned in the advertisement was five years of teaching experience in a recognized Degree College. The respondent no.5 applied in pursuance to the advertisement. He was selected on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, papers were forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for approval. The Vice Chancellor vide order dated 17.01.2014 approved the selection. In pursuance thereof the Committee of Management of the College offered appointment to respondent no.5 as Principal on probation for a period of one year at the first instance. Copy of letter of appointment dated 16.06.2014 is enclosed as Annexure 2 to the present writ petition.

It appears that certain complaints were received by the Committee of Management in the respect of academic and teaching experience of respondent no.5. Therefore, vide letter dated 23.07.2015 it required the respondent no.5 to supply the necessary documents for verification to the Management. The Committee of Management also withheld the salary of respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 filed writ petition no.14065 of 2015 claiming salary of the post of Principal. The writ petition is said to be pending.  An interim order was passed by the High Court on 09.04.2015 requiring the District Inspector of Schools to verify the documents in the presence of representatives of the parties and on being satisfied the Committee shall submit the salary bill. The District Inspector of Schools heard the parties on 18.04.2015 and expressed certain doubts in respect of the documents produced by respondent no.5 and required the respondent no.5 to produce the original mark sheet and other original documents within three days. The respondent no.5 is stated to have submitted the documents before the District Inspector of Schools. The writ Court on 13.05.2015 in the circumstances, required the District Inspector of Schools to pass final orders on the basis of the material produced before him.

The District Inspector of Schools required the parties to appear again under letter dated 30.05.2015. From the records it appears that Committee of Management did not appear before the District Inspector of Schools on 02.06.2015.

The District Inspector of Schools in absence of the Management has passed the impugned order dated 02.06.2015 wherein it has been recorded that on examination of the mark sheet of the Poorva Madyama examination and the original certificate as well as duplicate copy of the mark sheet it is found that the same is true and correct. It has been recorded that in the duplicate mark sheet and the original mark sheet there is hardly any difference in the marks recorded. It has, therefore, been held that the certificates produced by the respondent no.5 cannot be doubted. He has been held entitled to his salary accordingly.

The order of the District Inspector of Schools is challenged on the ground that the District Inspector of Schools has only examined the testimonials produced by respondent no.5 without actually getting them verified from the examining body which had issued the certificates. It is further stated that the District Inspector of Schools has recorded absolutely no finding on the issue pertaining to the respondent no.5 being possessed of the requisite experience of five years teaching in a Post Graduate Degree College or not. It included the issue as to whether such experience must be as a regular teacher of a Degree College affiliated to the University or it can be any experience even as a part time faculty member would suffice. According to the counsel for the Committee, it has decided not to extend the probation period of respondent no.5 and that respondent no.5 has himself submitted a resignation letter.

Counsel for respondent no.5 disputes the correctness of the stand so taken and it is stated that probation has wrongly been terminated in the facts of the present case and that such termination has yet not been approved by the competent authority i.e. the Vice-Chancellor.

We have heard counsel for the parties and examined the records as available in the present writ petition. In our opinion the order of the District Inspector of Schools which is based on evaluation of the documents produced by the petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools himself is legally not justified. The correctness or otherwise of the educational certificates produced by respondent no.5 should have necessarily be got done by the examining body which had issued the certificates. Since such verification has not been done by District Inspector of Schools, he is not justified in recording that educational certificates produced by respondent no.5 are genuine. There is no finding on the issue pertaining to the respondent no.5 being possessed of required teaching experience or not. All and sundry kind of experience would suffice or the person should have necessarily  worked as a regular teacher in an affiliated Degree College is the other question which has not been examined by the District Inspector of Schools.

For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by District Inspector of Schools cannot be legally sustained, it is hereby quashed. Let the educational certificates of the respondent no.5 be got verified from the examining body.  The 'experience certificate' verified from the respective college and submitted by the respondent No.5 and pass a reasoned order as to whether respondent no.5 satisfies all the essential requirements for being appointed as a Teacher in the petitioner institution or not. The issue pertaining to the nature of experience also needs to be considered in terms of the advertisement and provisions applicable.

Normally, we would have remanded the matter for re-examination to District Inspector of Schools, but since the issue with reference to the termination of the probation of respondent no.5 is already engaging the attention of the Vice Chancellor of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, we deem it fit and proper to direct that the issues raised by means of the present writ petition i.e. whether the respondent no.5 possess all requisite teaching experience verification of the educational certificates etc., be also done by the Vice Chancellor of the University in light of the observations made above. The Vice Chancellor is requested to complete the proceedings in that regard preferably within six weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. All consequential action shall be taken accordingly.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 26.8.2015

Kirti