Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25131 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Narain Rai,Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
An order dated 24.9.2018 of the Principal of the institution removing petitioner from service is assailed in this petition, primarily on the ground that a prior approval has not been obtained in terms of Regulation 31 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, opposes the submission on the ground that a Larger Bench of this Court in Rishikesh Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(9) ADJ 361, has already examined the issue, and the reference has been answered by holding that no prior approval or sanction from the Inspector is required before taking an action against the Class-IV employee. Para 80 of the Larger Bench judgment in Rishikesh Lal Srivastava (supra) is reproduced hereinafter:-
"80. Our answer to the questions referred to us are as under:-
(i) For awarding a punishment as enumerated under Regulation 31 Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to a Class-IV employee of a institution recognized under the aforesaid Act, no prior approval or sanction from the Inspector of Schools is required.
(ii) The Division Bench judgments in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari v. District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, 2006(3) ESC 1765(All) and Pujari Yadav Vs. Ram Briksh Yadav, 2006(65) ALR 767 lay down the correct law in contradistinction to the Division Bench judgment of Principal, Rashtriya Inter College, Bali Nichlaul, District Maharajganj and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 707 and the other judgments to that effect."
In such view of the matter, the order of Principal would not be open to challenge only on the ground that prior approval has not been obtained from the Principal.
Even otherwise, petitioner has the remedy of preferring an appeal against the order before the management and thereafter a representation lies to the District Inspector of Schools. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Principal has the support of the Committee of Management, and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in preferring an appeal before the Management, inasmuch as it would not be an effective remedy.
In view of the contentions advanced, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to represent his grievance against the order impugned before the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, alongwith certified copy of this order, within two weeks from today. In case such a claim is raised, the concerned Inspector shall exercise his power in terms of Regulation 31, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management and the Principal, and shall pass a reasoned order, within a further period of three months, thereafter. The order impugned shall abide by the orders that may be passed by the Inspector in the matter.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Anil