Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15189 of 2002 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Respondent :- Basic Shiksha Adhikari Jaunpur & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Upadhyay,Anil Kumar Singh,C.P. Dwivedi,Pankaj Baranwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hemant Kumar,P.K.Srivastava
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Baranwal, Advocate, for petitioner; and, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Hemant Kumar, Advocate, for respondents.
2. Admittedly petitioner was working as Head Master of Om Shri Radha Krishna Vidya Mandir, Shakti Nagar, Lakhuwan, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as "School"). The Manager of School by impugned order dated 19.12.2001 removed petitioner from service communicating that such a decision has been taken by Committee of Management.
3. The School in question admittedly is governed by provisions of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1978”). Rule of 15 of Rules, 1978 clearly provides that no Head Master shall be discharged, removed or dismissed from service without prior approval in writing of District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter referred to as “DBEO”) and reads as under:
“15. Termination of service. - No Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a recognised school may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer:
Provided that in the case of the Headmaster or an Assistant Teacher of a minority institution the approval of the District Basic Education Officer shall not be necessary.”
4. In the present case, admittedly, no such approval of DBEA was obtained. However, learned counsel appearing for Committee of Management contended that petitioner was an ad-hoc appointee but placed no material before this Court to show that he was an ad-hoc appointee.
5. More so, in the present case petitioner has been removed from service by way of punishment and, therefore, even if it was an ad-hoc appointment principles of natural justice are attracted and no person could have been imposed with punishment of removal without holding departmental inquiry and in my view Rule 15 of Rules, 1978 is clearly attracted in the case in hand. In view thereof, impugned order of removal cannot be sustained.
6. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.12.2001 is hereby set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 PS