Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI RAMESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY versus REGIONAL INSPECTRESS OF GIRLS SCHOOLS & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sri Ramesh Chandra Varshney v. Regional Inspectress Of Girls Schools & Others - WRIT - A No. 16292 of 1988 [2003] RD-AH 520 (12 December 2003)

 

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

                                                           Judgment Reserved on 14.11.2003

                                                           Judgment Delivered on 12.12.2003

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16292 of 1988.

Ramesh Chandra Varshney                           ...                    Petitioner

Versus

Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools,

Moradabad and others                                   ...                    Respondents.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Sri Anil Bhushan for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

Hira Devi Tota Ram Girls Higher Secondary School, Bahjoi, District-Moradabad is a recognised educational Institution governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Staff) Act, 1971.  One Sri Virendra Kumar Agarwal, Clerk of the College, did not report for duty after October, 1979. His services were terminated by the management on 18.6.1982 causing a substantive vacancy.  Petitioner applied, and was appointed as Clerk in the college for a fixed term.  By an order dated 2.2.1982 Petitioner's appointment was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls School upto 30.6.1982.  Petitioner continued to function even after the period of probation.  He fell ill and remained on leave from 31.12.1984 to December, 1985.  The then Administrator of the College appointed under section 16-D of the Act, terminated petitioner's services.  The order did not precede any prior approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls School.  His salary was withheld from December, 1985.  On his representation, the Committee of Management issued a fresh appointment letter on 3.8.1987.  The appointment was made after following regular selection proceedings.  The petitioner resumed duties on 4.8.1987.  The Regional Inspectress of Girls School by her letter dated 18.8.1987, refused to grant approval as the application was not invited through the Employment Exchange.  The management protested to the letter as no procedure was prescribed for

2

inviting application from Employment Exchange.  The petitioner was not paid his salary.  He filed this writ petition for direction to the respondents to treat him in service as clerk in the college and to pay salary from December, 1985 or from 4.8.1987, and for quashing the order dated 23.9.1985 passed by the Administrator of the College.  He has  also prayed for writ of mandamus to pay him regular salary.  

In the counter affidavit of Vijay Narain Sharma, Assistant Clerk G.G.I.C. Amroha, Moradabad, it is stated in paragraph 6 that petitioner did not challenge it has passed by the Administrator on 23.9.1985 and that the termination order became final.  In accordance with his date of birth dated 10.7.1942, he could neither be appointed on regular basis on 23.9.1985 or on 3.8.1987 as he was much beyond prescribed maximum age of 30 years at the time of either of his appointments.

Sri Anil Bhushan states that there is no age limit prescribed for appointment of clerk.  He submits that the order dated 23.9.1987 has been challenged in this writ petition.  According to him, the order is wholly illegal and violative of Regulation   31 of Chapter III of the Regulation framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which provides for prior approval before terminating the services of any employee of a college.  He submits that the order issued  without seeking  prior approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls School is nonest, and thus the petitioner is entitled to medical leave and salary with effect from 23.9.1985.

Prior to the amendment in Section 16-G(1) by U.P. Act No. 26 of 1975, the services of the non-teaching staff of  the recognised institution were governed by the agreement.  After the amendment,  the services of these employees were  regulated by the Regulations made under the Act.  Regulation 31 falling under Chapter III made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, provides that no employee of a recognised institution can be awarded the punishment enumerated in that provision before prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools.  In  Bhopal Singh Verma Vs. Deputy Director of Education and others, (1983 UPLBEC 597) and in Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Karni Farrukhabad  Vs. The District Inspector of Schools, Farukkhbad and others (1981 UPLBEC

3

135), it was held by this Court  that an employee was entitled to be retained in service, till such appointment as prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools had not been obtained to the decision of the committee of management.

In the present case the order terminating petitioner's services dated 23.9.1985 could not have operated to terminate petitioner's services unless it was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools.   The petitioner as such continued in service.  His fresh appointment on 3.8.1987 was of no consequence and was  a superfluous exercise. There is no averment in the counter affidavit that the documents with regard to termination of petitioner's services by the Administrator of the College were forwarded to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools.  The question of his subsequent appointment and continuation in service and the maximum age of appointment are, therefore, not relevant for deciding the present writ petition.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed.  It is held that termination of petitioner's services by the then Administrator dated 23.9.1985 was not effective and that the petitioner is entitled to consideration of medical leave from 31.12.1984 to 23.9.1985.  His absence from 23.9.1985 to 3.8.1987 shall be treated to be on leave and that the petitioner shall be entitled to continue in service and for payment of salary.  There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt.12.12.2003

BM/-


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.