Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8048 of 2018 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Victoria Inter College Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
An order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra, dated 16.2.2018, is challenged by the petitioner Committee of Management in this petition. By the order impugned, the Inspector has disapproved the decision taken by the Committee of Management on 13.10.2017 to dismiss the services of respondent no.4. The Inspector has further directed that respondent no.4, in such circumstances, would continue to function as Officiating Principal of the institution.
The order is challenged on the ground that the Inspector has no jurisdiction to disapprove the decision taken by the Committee against respondent no.4, and the matter had to be referred only to the Board, which has not been done. It is also stated that there is no independent consideration on part of the Inspector as to whether the order of suspension is required to be approved or not? Considerations relevant for the purpose are stated not to be in existence in the facts of the present case.
Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava appearing for the respondent no.4, after some argument in the matter, states that the authority concerned may be directed to re-visit the matter.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of by this order.
Admittedly jurisdiction to approve an order of punishment passed against a teacher would be with the Board in terms of Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982. The Inspector under the Act has no power to disapprove the termination order. In such circumstances, part of the order of the Inspector disapproving the termination order is wholly without jurisdiction, and is set aside. The Inspector is directed to transmit all papers in that regard to the Board for its appropriate consideration, in accordance with law.
So far as the order of suspension passed against the respondent no.4 on 24.8.2017 is concerned, such order of suspension has not been approved. The suspension, therefore, is inoperative as on date. Law otherwise is settled that even after expiry of 60 days, the Inspector is required to take a decision on the resolution of Committee of Management to place the teacher under suspension. Such consideration is not reflected in the order of Inspector. In such circumstances, a direction is issued to respondent no.3 to accord consideration to the resolution of Committee of Management to place respondent no.4 under suspension. It goes without saying that an opportunity of hearing would be granted to respondent no.4 in the matter. The required decision in that regard would be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
It is clarified that so long as a decision is not taken by the Inspector, as indicated above, respondent no.4 will continue in the institution in the capacity as he was prior to passing of the order under challenge.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Anil