Allahabad High Court
Head Master Jairam Janta Junior ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 26 September, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6520 of 2022
Petitioner :- Head Master Jairam Janta Junior High School, Ram Nagar Dist. Ambedkar Nagar And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education,Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Sharad Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Neeraj Chaurasiya,Pushpendra Kumar,Durgesh Shukla
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to the Headmaster of the Jairam Janta Junior High School, Ram Nagar, District Ambedkar Nagar. He seeks to challenge the order dated 03.06.2022 whereby the Director of Education has recalled his earlier order dated 19.08.2021.
The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner in brief is that as there was various irregularities being committed in the institution in question, an order came to be passed appointing an Authorized Controller for disbursement of salary. Subsequently, the dispute which has arisen to the filing of the present petition is the order dated 09.06.2021 whereby the appointment of the Authorized Controller was recalled by the Assistant Director. The said order dated 09.06.2021 came to be challenged before the Director and the Director proceeded to pass an order on 19.08.2021 (Annexure 10) whereby the order dated 09.06.2021 was quashed. Consequent to the said order dated 19.08.2021, passed by the Director, a fresh order came to be passed by the Assistant Director on 19.08.2021 (Annexure-11) whereby making a mention of the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Director, the operation and effect of the earlier order dated 09.06.2021 was suspended. It appears that on a representation filed by the respondents no.5 and 6, a fresh order came to be passed on 03.06.2022 whereby the order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure-10) passed by the Director was recalled. The said order is under challenge by the petitioner.
The Counsel for the petitioner has raised two preliminary objections, firstly that the petitioner has not disclosed the material facts and thus according to him the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of disclosure of material facts. In support of his arguments, he places reliance on the pendency of a Special Appeal No.216 of 2022) which according to the respondent has not been disclosed.
The Counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit whereby he has made a disclosure about the pendency of the said special appeal, as such, the first preliminary objection merits rejection.
The second preliminary objection by the respondent being that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order which relates to the appointment of the Authorized Controller as the petitioner claims to be Headmaster and has no role to play in the manner in which the Committee of Management functions.
In reply to the said preliminary objection, the Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Janta Inter College, Pateshwarnath, Patijiya Bhujrg, Gonda vs State of U.P.; 2010 SCC OnLine All 1104 wherein this Court had held that the petitioner whose salary was not being paid, which led to the appointment of Authorized Controller is necessarily an aggrieved person and the writ petition on his behalf is maintainable.
The Counsel for the respondent tried to distinguish the said judgment, inasmuch as, in the present case, the petitioner being the Headmaster is entitled to pursue his remedy for salary as advised under law. The taking over of the administration in exercise of power under Rule 25(2) of the Regulation 1978 as amended in the year 2019 is a serious issue affecting the rights of managing the institution which cannot be taken at the instance of the person who is only claiming payment of salary. He further argues that even otherwise by means of the impugned order, the Director has recalled the earlier order dated 19.08.2021 which was without jurisdiction.
The Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that he has locus argues that in terms of the Regulation 25(2), the Assistant Director is within his power to reach to a conclusion in the event that there is a breach of provision of the Act or the Rules and non payment of salary can proceed to pass order appointing authorized controller, as such the petitioner has a locus.
I hold that locus and the appointment of the authorized controller, which affects the rights of the Committee of Management would only vests with a person who is the part of the Committee of Management or under a PIL and nothing beyond that. Merely on the grounds of alleged non payment of salary, the petitioner shall not get locus for appointment of authorised controller.
The Counsel for the petitioner has next raised an argument that the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 is without jurisdiction as in terms of the Regulations, it is only the Assistant Director who can pass the order.
In view of the said submissions what is to be seen is whether the order dated 19.08.2021 passed earlier and has recalled by the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 was within the jurisdiction or not.
The scheme of the Regulation of 1978 framed under the Act prescribes that it is the only the Assistant Director, who can pass an order appointing an Authorized Controller on the recommendation of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari without there being any appeal. The earlier order dated 19.08.2021 was passed setting aside the order dated 09.06.2021 which had recalled the order appointing the authorized controller. No such power appears to be traceable under Regulation of 1978 which were vested in the Director to pass such an order, as such, the recall of the order dated 19.08.2021 by means of the impugned order dated 03.06.2022, only recalls the earlier order which was without jurisdiction, as such, there is no hesitation in holding that the earlier order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Director was being without jurisdiction was rightly recalled by the order dated 03.06.2022.
I am of the view that the petitioner being the Headmaster, has right to agitate for payment of his salary in accordance with law, however, at his instance, the suspension of the Committee of Management which is a serious infringement of the right of the Committee of Management cannot be agitated.
In view of the finding that the order dated 03.06.2022 only recalls the earlier order dated 19.08.2021 which was without jurisdiction and, the fact that the petitioner does not have a locus, the prayer as prayed in the writ petition cannot be granted.
Thus, without giving any finding with regard to the rights of the petitioner for claim of salary in accordance with law, no interference is called for in the writ petition.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2022
akverma
