Rajni Yadav vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Of ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 3307 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

A.F.R
 
Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 512 of 2015
 

 
Appellant :- Rajni Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Of Edu.(Madhayamik Lko.And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.C.Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pt.S.Chandra
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

Heard Sri Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri Som Kartik for respondent No.4 and Pt. S. Chandra for the respondent No.5.

This appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge passed at the interim stage of the pendency of Writ Petition No.5660 of 2015 dated 28.9.2015, wherein the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the said order was passed without taking into consideration the statutory provisions of Regulations 29 and 30 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as also the impact of the communications including the letters submitted by the petitioner in relation to her claim of functioning as an ad hoc Principal of the Institution.

It is undisputed that the Institution is an aided Institution governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as well as the U.P. Secondary Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the regulations framed there under.

The appellant was admittedly earlier working as ad hoc Principal of the Institution. The Committee of Management took a stand that the appellant had submitted her resignation which the appellant contends was in order to accommodate the regularly selected candidate of the Commission, who has been empanelled for being appointed as a regular Principal in the Institution. The said resignation letter, as submitted by the appellant, came to be considered by the Committee of Management in a resolution but prior to passing of the said resolution dated 23.11.2014, the appellant appears to have straightway approached the District Inspector of Schools who passed an order on 17.11.2014. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 22.11.2014 in continuation of earlier letters dated 13.11.2014 and 17.11.2014.

The Committee of Management alleges that it is on the strength of such orders being passed by the District Inspector of Schools, which are without authority that the appellant is trying to overcome the effect of her resignation letter which has already been accepted. The appellant, therefore, cannot turn around and claim herself to be an ad-hoc Principal.

It is in this background that the District Inspector of Schools further proceeded to pass an order of single operation on 30.4.2015, 9.6.2015 and 3.7.2015. The order dated 3.7.2015 came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.3793 (M/S) of 2015 by the Committee of Management contending that the order was without authority in law and was in violation of principles of natural justice. The said writ petition was entertained and is pending and the operation of the order of single operation was stayed vide order dated 10.7.2015.

It appears that after passing of the said interim order, the District Inspector of Schools passed a fresh order on 9.9.2015 whereby purporting to comply with the aforesaid interim order, he has withdrawn the order of single operation but at the same time issued a simultaneous direction of treating the appellant to be a recognized ad hoc Principal and for making payment of salary to her along with other employees.

The said order came to be challenged by the respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.5660 of 2015 which has given rise to the present appeal. A similar writ petition, being Writ Petition No.5822 (M/S) of 2015, has been filed by the Committee of Management challenging the same order.

The learned single Judge vide impugned order dated 28.9.2015 has observed to the effect that after going through the records prima facie the submission of the respondent No.5 was correct and, therefore, as an interim measure it is provided that till the next date of listing, the respondent No.5 shall be allowed to work and discharge his duty as Principal in Lucknow Intermediate College, Lucknow.

Aggrieved the appellant before this Court is contending that the entire relief has been granted by the learned single Judge on the very first day to the respondent No.5 on the presentation of the petition without giving any time to file counter-affidavit and hearing the matter on the interim order thereafter. He, therefore, submits that the learned single Judge even otherwise has not adopted the correct procedure, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the said interim order dated 28.9.2015 deserves to be set aside.

A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents herein that this appeal is against an interim order and, therefore, is not maintainable. We are unable to agree with the said proposition in view of the latest Full Bench decision of our Court in the case of Ashutosh Shrotiya and others Vs. Vice Chancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University and others, Special Appeal No.1140 of 2008 connected with other matters decided on 4.9.2015. We, accordingly, hold that the impugned order which has civil consequences and affects the right of the parties, an appeal would be maintainable keeping in view the ratio laid down therein.

The second contention of learned Counsel for the respondents is to the effect that in the event the appeal calls for an interference, it would amount to restoring of an order which would be equally illegal and, therefore, such a situation should be avoided.

As a matter of fact having gone through the entire record and having found the pleadings which has been exchanged between the parties, it appears that the issue relating to the resignation which has been taken into consideration by the learned single Judge does not appear to have been assessed in the light of the provisions of regulations 29 and 39 of Chapter-III. The impact of the decisions on the issue relating to resignation by a teacher or an ad hoc Principal of an Intermediate College under the 1921 Act also deserves to be considered accordingly. The interim order dated 28.9.2015 does affect the rights of the appellant to stake her claim whatever worth it is before the learned single Judge.

However, on the facts of the present case what we have found is that admittedly the order dated 9.9.2015 which has given rise to the controversy was passed without giving notice or opportunity to the respondents herein namely the Committee of Management and the respondent No.5 as well. In such a situation, the first issue that comes up for consideration is that can such an order be passed by the District Inspector of Schools thereby affecting the right of the parties as well as of the respondent No.5. In the considered opinion of the court and having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the aforesaid cannot be answered in the positive and, therefore, we find that the order dated 9.9.2015 having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Consequently, we are of the opinion that this Special Appeal and both the above mentioned writ petitions deserve to be disposed of finally at this stage to which learned Counsel for the parties including the learned Standing Counsel have no objection. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of but at the same time we set aside the order dated 9.9.2015 challenged in Writ petition No.5660 of 2015. The appeal and both the aforesaid writ petitions, accordingly, stand disposed of.

The District Inspector of Schools shall now proceed to hear the appellant and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the date fixed by him and then decide the said grievance of the appellant vis-a-vis her allegations relating to the resignation and the defence taken by the respondents as also the future continuance of the ac hoc Principal keeping in view the fact that the regularly selected candidate is stated to have been empaneled in the Institution. The District Inspector of Schools shall pass orders within 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

The parties shall appear before the District Inspector of Schools on 19.10.2015, who shall find time to dispose of the matter at the earliest so that no confusion exists on the post of Principal.

The District Inspector of Schools shall also put the regularly selected candidate to notice in this regard.

All pleas shall be open to the respective parties to be raised before the District Inspector of Schools.

The parties would now be finally governed by the orders to be passed under the Division Bench orders passed today.

The interim order impugned herein stands dissolved with the disposal of this appeal.

A copy of this judgement shall be placed on record of the aforesaid writ petitions.

Order Date :- 16.10.2015

Irshad