# Committee of Management and another v. D.I.O.S., Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 263
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-09-11
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-and-another-v-d-i-o-s-allahabad-and-others-39608
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1All] Committee of Management and another V. D.I.O.S., Allahabad and others
263
on 7.4.2000 the learned Standing
Counsel (Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, Advocate)
was required to intimate the order of the
Court to the Secretary, Department of
Health, Government of U.P. for taking
appropriate
action.

None
of
the
respondents (including Secretary of the
Department concerned) have cared to file
counter affidavit or submit their report as
stated by the learned Standing Counsel.
The learned Standing Counsel further
orally informs this Court that he has no
instruction in the matter despite repeated
intimation and communication to the
respondents.

5. Heard Sri Malay K. Shukla, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, who in
the peculiar facts and circumstances
prayed to allow this writ petition, as well
as Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned Standing
Counsel and perused the record.

6. Healthy babies are invaluable and
precious national resource, and to have a
'Healthy Nation' will remain a dream if
expectant mothers are not provided all
possible and proper 'pre-natal' care.
From the facts stated in the petition,
which have been unrebutted, coupled with
the circumstances that the respondents
have no defence to offer inspite of
repeated opportunities being given, we are
of the considered opinion that huge public
money
having
been
invested
in
constructing 'New Hospital Complex'
with modern facilities should not be
allowed to go in vain. The money spent
by the Government on behalf of the
public must not be wasted and the
complex (New Hospital) must be utilised
forthwith; particularly when there is no
explanation whatsoever for not carrying
the project to its logical end.

7. Accordingly, the orders dated
13.10.1999 and 2.11.1999 as contained is
Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition
being
arbitrary
and
without
any
reasonable justification are quashed. The
respondents are directed to ensure shifting
of the Post Partem Centre forthwith. The
writ petition stands allowed.

8. No order as to cost.

9. The office is directed to hand over
a copy of this order within on week to Sri
Shabhajeet
Yadav,
learned
Standing
Counsel, for its intimation to the authority
concerned.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 906$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 906$+$, -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW «3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI 6FKRROV $OODKDEDG
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $. 7HZDUL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 6' .DXWDO\KLD
6KUL 9LPOHVK 6ULYDVWDYD
6KUL $% 6LQJK

,QWHUPHGLDWH
(GXFDWLRQ
$FW

6HFWLRQ * 6XVSHQVLRQ RI 3ULQFLSDO
RI
,QWHUPHGLDWH
&ROOHJH0DQDJHPHQW
VHQG
IRU
DSSURYDO',26
GLVDSSURYHG
ZLWK
VD\LQJ
FRQWUDU\
WR
5XOHV
1R
UHDVRQV UHFRUGHG DV WR ZKLFK RI WKH
SURYLVLRQV
KDYH
EHHQ
YLRODWHGRUGHU
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
264
TXDVKHG ZLWK GLUHFWLRQ WR SDVV IUHVK
RUGHU LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK ODZ
+HOG ± 3DUD
6WDWXWRU\ SURYLVLRQ RI VHFWLRQ * RI
WKH $FW H[SUHVVO\ SURYLGHV WKDW RUGHU
XQGHU WKLV VXEVHFWLRQ KDV WR EH SDVVHG
LQ ZULWLQJ E\ WKH ',26 ,W LV LPSOLFLW WKDW
ZKLOH SDVVLQJ DQ RUGHU LQ ZULWLQJ KH KDV
WR DSSO\ KLV PLQG DQG JLYH UHDVRQV IRU
DSSURYLQJ
RU
GLVDSSURYLQJ
WKH
VXVSHQVLRQ RUGHU
+H LV XQGHU D OHJDO
GXW\ DQG REOLJDWLRQ WR SDVV D UHDVRQHG
RUGHU WKDW FDQ EH XSKHOG LQ ODZ ,W LV QRW
D
IRUPDOLW\
0HUH
ZULWLQJ
WKDW
VXVSHQVLRQ RUGHU ZDV FRQWUDU\ WR WKH
SURYLVLRQ RI WKH $FW ZDV QRW VXIILFLHQW
7KH LPSXJQHG RUGHU FDQQRW EH XSKHOG

By the Court

1. Sri P.N. Singh the respondent no.
2 was officiating principal of Janta Inter
College, Mau Aima, Allahabad. On the
basis
of
an
enquiry
report
dated
11.9.1998,
he
was
suspended
on
12.9.1998 by petitioners. The committee
of management of 18.9.1998 forwarded
papers to the District Inspector of Schools
(in brief DIOS) for grant of approval to
the suspension order as provided under
Section 16-G(7) of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 (in brief Act). By
order
dated
26.9.1998
the
DIOD
disapproved the suspension order. The
petitioners have challenged the order
dated 26.9.1998 by means of this writ
petition.

2. Sri R.K. Ojha the learned counsel
for the petitioner has urged that the DIOS
did not give any reason for disapproving
the suspension order nor any provision of
Act was mentioned in the impugned order
on the basis of which the suspension order
was disapproved. He placed reliance on a
Full Bench decision of this court in
Chandra Bhushan Mishra V. District
Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others
1995 (1) UPLBEC 460. He further
pointed out that on 7.10.1998 this court
has stayed the order dated 26.91998
passed by DIOS. And the petitioner was
permitted to complete the enquiry against
respondent no.2. On the other hand Sri
A.B. Singh the learned counsel for
respondent no.2 has urged that after
expiry of sixty days, the suspension order
would automatically come to an end. He
placed reliance on decisions of this court
in Committee of Management. Vasudev
Mishra Higher Secondary School, Kanpur
Nagar and others v. Deputy Director of
Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur and
other, 1992 (2) UPLBRC 1325 and
Committee of Management, Jan Sahyogi
Intermediate College, Modhi, Etawah v.
District Inspector of Schools, Etawah and
another 1986 UPLBEC 144. He also
relied on the decision of the apex court in
Rajendra Prasad v. Kayastha Pathshala
and another AIR 1987 SC 1644. The
learned counsel has further urged that
enquiry has been completed and the
management has passed a resolution for
terminating the service of the respondent
no.2. The resolution has been sent by the
petitioners through the DIOS to the
Commission/Board as provided by U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Commission and Selection Boards Act
1982 for grant of approval. And the
matter
is
pending
before
the
Commission/Board. He urged that the
suspension order would be deemed to
have come to an end.

3. Under section 16-G(7) of Act the
DIOS is under a statutory duty to approve
or disapprove the suspension order in
writing. This power has been conferred
on him so that the management may not
1All] Ashraf Ali V. State of U.P. and another
265
suspend the Head of the institution or
a
teacher arbitrarily, in highhanded
manner. The only reason given by the
DIOS for disapproving the suspension
order is that from the examination of
records he came to the conclusion that the
management
has
suspended
the
respondent no. 2 in violation of the
provisions of Act. Form the impugned
order it is clear that the DIOS did not
apply its mind to the facts of the case nor
any provision of Act was considered.
Statutory provision of section 16 - G (7)
of the Act expressly provides that order
under this sub-section has to be passed in
writing by the DIOS. It is implicit that
while passing an order in writing he has to
apply his mind and give reasons for
approving or disapproving the suspension
order. He is under a legal duty and
obligation to pass a reasoned order that
can be upheld in law. It is not a formality.
Mere writing that suspension order was
contrary to the provision of the Act was
not sufficient. The impugned order
cannot be upheld.

4. I have held that order passed by
the DIOS is illegal, therefore, it is not
necessary for me to consider the other
arguments raised by the learned counsel
for the parties.

5. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order dated
26.9.198 passed by respondent no.1,
Annexure-6 to the writ petition, is
quashed. The District Inspector of
Schools, Allahabad shall pass a fresh
order in accordance with law within a
period of two months from today. The
petitioners
and
respondent
no.2 are
directed to serve a certified copy of this
order on respondent no. 1 within a period
of one week from today.
Office shall issue certified copy of
this order to learned counsel for the
parties on payment of usual charges
within three days.

Parties shall bear their own costs.
Petition Allowed.

5(9,6,21$/$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21$/$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 9. &+$7
7+( +21·%/( 9. &+$7859(', -
859(', -

&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

$VKUDI $OL
«5HYLVLRQLVW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQRWKHU «2SS 3DUWLHV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HYLVLRQLVW
6KUL $UYLQG 0LVUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
$*$.

&RGH RI &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH 6HFWLRQ

±
QR
QRWLFH
LV
UHTXLUHG
EHIRUH
FDQFHOOLQJ EDLO DQG ERQGV RI DFFUXHG
+HOG LQ SDUD 7KH ZRUGV XVHG LQ
VXE VHFWLRQ RI VHFWLRQ &U3&
ODYH QR URRP IRU GRXEW WKDW EHIRUH D
SHUVRQ LV UHOHDVHG RQ EDLO VDLG SHUVRQ
DOVR
PXVW
H[HFXWH
D
ERQG
7KH
XQGHUWDNLQJ JLYHQ E\ WKH DFFXVHG DV PD\
EH VHHQ IURP )RUP 1R RI VFKHGXOH ,,
ZDV WR DWWHQG WKH FRXUW RQ HYHU\ GD\ RI
KHDULQJ DQG WR DSSHDU EHIRUH WKH FRXUW
ZKHQHYHU FDOOHG XSRQ DQG LI KH IDLOV WR
DSSHDU EHIRUH WKH FRXUW WKHQ FRXUW KDV
QR RSWLRQ EXW WR FDQFHO KLV EDLO IRUIHLW
KLV
ERQG
DQG
LVVXH
QRWLFHV
WR
WKH
VXUHWLHV DQG LI WKH DFFXVHG LQ SXUVXDQFH
RI WKH XQGHUWDNLQJ JLYHQ
LQ WKH ERQG
IDLOV
WR
DSSHDU
EHIRUH WKH FRXUW QR
QRWLFH LV UHTXLUHG EHIRUH FDQFHOOLQJ KLV
EDLO DQG ERQGV
$IWHU KHDULQJ OHDUQHG FRXQVHO IRU WKH
SDUWLHV DQG NHHSLQJ LQ YLHZ WKH OHJDO