Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M ADARSH KANYA I. COLLEGE THRU' MANAGER AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Adarsh Kanya I. College Thru' Manager And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 26233 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9778 (18 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

 COURT NO.6

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26233of  2006

Committee of Management, Adarsh Kanya

Inter College, Kheta Sarai, Jaunpur and  another..................Petitioners

   Vs.

State of U.P. and other.......................................................Respondents

 ********

Hon.Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard Sri Rahul Shripat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.P.Dubey, the learned counsel for the  respondent No.5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents.  

The petitioner is a Committee of Management and issued an order dated 6.7.2005 suspending the respondent No.5. A charge-sheet dated 1.9.2005 was issued to respondent No.3. The inquiry was concluded on 31.10.2005 and the papers were forwarded to the Selection Board for the approval of the proposed punishment to the U.P. Secondary Service Selection Board, through the agency of the District Inspector of Schools, in November, 2005. In the meanwhile, the District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 24.10.2005 and 10.11.2005 revoked the suspension order on the ground that the suspension order had not been approved within 60 days and that the said suspension order automatically came to an end and, therefore directed the Committee of Management to hand over the charge of the post of Principal to the respondent No.5. These orders were challenged by the Committee of Management in Writ Petition No.71766 of 2005 which was allowed by a judgment dated 23.11.2005. The orders of the District Inspector of Schools were quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Inspector to decide afresh.  Based on the said direction, the Inspector again issued an order dated 14.2.2006 quashing the proposal of the Committee of Management for terminating the services of the respondent No.5. This order was again challenged by the Committee of Management in Writ Petition No.11771 of 2006 which was allowed by a judgment dated 2.3.2006 and the matter was again remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools.

The District Inspector of Schools has again passed an order dated 5.5.2006 revoking the suspension order, on the ground, that the earlier orders of the District Inspector of Schools dated 24.10.2005 and 10.11.2005 had not been complied with by the Committee of management.

The ground for the revocation of the suspension order apparently does not exist, inasmuch as, the said orders dated 24.10.2005 and 10.11.2005 had already been quashed by a judgment of this Court dated 23.11.2005. Further, the revocation of the suspension order can only be considered upon existence of certain exigencies as contemplated under section 16-G(8) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, which is quoted herein below:

"(8) If, at any time, the Inspector is satisfied that disciplinary proceedings against the Head of Institution or teacher are being delayed, for no fault of the Head of Institution or the teacher, the Inspector may, after affording opportunity to the management to make representation revoke an order of suspension passed under this section."

A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates, that the Inspector must be satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are being delayed. In the present case, apparently the disciplinary proceedings were concluded and the report as well as the resolution of the Committee of Management proposing the punishment had already been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools to be sent for further action to the Selection Board who is the final authority to approve or disapprove  of the matter under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982. Consequently, in the opinion of the Court, no ground whatsoever existed for the revocation of the suspension order.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the order dated 5.5.2006 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, revoking the suspension order is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.

The District Inspector of Schools is further directed to remit the papers of the case to the Selection Board within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order to be filed by either of the parties and the Selection Board in turn is directed to decide the matter within three months thereafter.

Dated:18.5.2006

AKJ.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.