# Committee of Management and another v. Joint Director of Education and another - **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 218 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 1998-08-27 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-and-another-v-joint-director-of-education-and-another-39601 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001 218 applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the subsequent G.O. dated 27th August, 1998 which has in effect modified the rigours of clause 4 of G.O. dated 18th July, 1989. So far as the decisions in the case of Shitla Prasad Dubey (supra) is concerned it will also not apply to the facts of the present case in as much as the State Government is yet to pass an order levying composition fee for violation of Rule 3(3) of the Rules. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions we hold that the District Entertainment Officer, Respondent no.3 was not justified in imposing the condition of not giving the benefit of grant in aid scheme while issuing the letter dated 6th July,1992 and the said condition is hereby quashed. The violation of Rule 3(3) is compoundable and the composition fee livable is Rs.50,000/- under Rule 44 of the Rules. The petitioner has already been granted a provisional licenc for exhibiting the cinematograph film under the grant in aid scheme on 18th July, 1989. Therefore, It will be subject to the orders which may be passed by the State Government for granting exemption for violation of Rule 3(3) of the Rules. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 90 6 7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, - $+$, - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI &RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW DQRWKHU «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV -RLQW 'LUHFWRU RI (GXFDWLRQ DQRWKHU «2SSRVLWH 3DUWLHV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV 6KUL 5DMLY 0LVUD 6KUL 5DP 3UDNDVK 0LVUD 6KUL 5& 6ULYDVWDYD &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6KUL 91 $JDUZDO 6KUL 6DQMD\ .XPDU 6& 83 6HFRQGDU\ 6HUYLFHV &RPPLVVLRQ DQG 6HOHFWLRQ %RDUGV $FW 6HFWLRQ 6XVSHQVLRQ RI 3ULQFLSDO 0DQDJHPHQW SDVVHG WKH RUGHU RI VXVSHQVLRQ VHQG IRU DSSURYDO WR 5,*6 DSSURYDO JUDQWHG RQ ZKLOH WKH SURYLVLRQV RI 6HFWLRQ FDPH LQWR H[LVWHQFH RQO\ WKH FRPPLVVLRQ ZDV HPSRZHUHG KHOG ± DSSURYDO JUDQWHG E\ WKH 5,*6 ZLWKRXW MXULVGLFWLRQ +HOG ± 3DUD ,W LV QHFHVVDU\ WR PHQWLRQ WKDW 8WWDU 3UDGHVK 6HFRQGDU\ 6HUYLFHV &RPPLVVLRQ DQG 6HOHFWLRQ %RDUGV $FW FDPH LQWR IRUFH RQ H[FHSW VHFWLRQ ZKLFK ZDV WR FRPH LQWR IRUFH RQ WKH GDWH WR EH QRWLILHG E\ WKH JRYHUQPHQW 6HFWLRQ ZDV VLPLODU WR VHFWLRQ RI WKH DFW ,W FDPH LQWR IRUFH RQ 7KH HIIHFW RI QRWLILFDWLRQ GDWHG ZDV WKDW WKH 5,*6 FHDVHG WR KDYH MXULVGLFWLRQ WR JUDQW DSSURYDO WR UHVROXWLRQ RI WHUPLQDWLRQ 7KH 5,*6 JUDQWHG DSSURYDO RQ WR WKH 1All] Committee of Management and another V. .Joint Director of Education and another 219 UHVROXWLRQ GDWHG VHQW E\ WKH PDQDJHPHQW WHUPLQDWLQJ WKH VHUYLFH RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW QR RQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI DSSURYDO YHVWHG LQ WKH FRPPLVVLRQ 7KH 5,*6 GLG QRW KDYH DQ\ SRZHU RQ WR JUDQW DSSURYDO WR WKH UHVROXWLRQ RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU 7KH DSSURYDO JUDQWHG E\ 5,*6 ZDV ZLWKRXW MXULVGLFWLRQ By the Court 1. Km. Avinash Gupta/respondent no.2 was appointed as Principal on 25.3.1975 on probation of one year in Vaidya Bhagwan Din Balika Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School, Nanpara, District Bahraich (in brief institution). She was suspended on 6.2.77, 4.4.77 and 11.7.77 but these suspension orders were not approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls School (in brief RIGS) She was again suspended on 16.4.81. This order was approved by RIGS. The charge sheet was issued to her on 17.2.81. It was replied on 23.3.81. The petitioner passed a resolution on 30.4.81 for terminating the services of respondent no.2. This resolution was sent to RIGS for approval, as provided by section 16-G (3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 (in brief the act). It remained pending with the RIGS for about four years. The approval was granted on 7th May, 1985. The respondent no.2 filed an appeal before the Joint Director of Education. This appeal was allowed on 18.7.87. The appellate order was challenged by petitioners by way of civil misc. writ petition no. 5562 of 1987 which was allowed on 16.7.91. with direction to the Joint Director of Education to decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the management and the principal, The Joint Director of Education again allowed the appeal on 10.7.1992 and set aside the order dated 7.5.85 granting approval. He held that RIGS had no power of approval on 7.5.85 as under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Acts, 1982 the power vested in the commission/board. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. 2. Sri Rajiv Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that RIGS had power to grant approval to the resolution of the management terminating the service of the petitioner. He placed reliance on Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 1985 by which proviso was inserted in Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982. The learned counsel has urged that the Joint Director of Education has not complied with the direction in writ petition no. 5562 of 1987 and has not decided the appeal considering all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. He lastly urged that once appellate authority held that the appeal before him was not maintainable he could not decide the appeal. 3. The respondent no.2 Km. Avinash Gupta has appeared in person. She and Sri V.N. Agarwal the learned standing counsel both have supported the order passed by the Joint Director Education. The learned standing counsel placed the notification dated 27.12.1983 notifying 1.1.1984 as the date for enforcement of section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982. The notification is extracted below. INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001 220 Y … % ( _ ‹ ¶ ¡N Q» N … _ Q» ‘ …% ( … ¡ ) [ | 0 ‘ -‚ o - [ !Ê ¡Q[ ›% ( ¡Q‘ ·} … ¡¡¢Y¡’¡26¡[¡¡ N … _ Q» · Y‚ ¡· % ( ¡ ) ‘ »‹ ‚ »0 ¿… 6 ‚ [ } »Ež ¡Y ¡[ ‚ · N … _ Q» ¡Y ¡[ ‚ · ‘ -‚ ‘ [ % ( © Y … % ( © ^ Y … ) % (» Y ©[ ¡ % 'L % ( _ ‚ »0 % (…% (» … 9‚ ^ o 9 [ ‹ … © % ( » $»‘ ¡Q[ % ( ¡[ ‚ L % (…L » FÀ 9 } ‘ » % 'L ¡Y ¡[ ‚ · % ( © Y … % ( © ^ Y … ¿… ( ) _ ‹ ¶N F 1⁄40 © < ‘ » F …· » 6 [S ¡M ^ a © ‘ ¡6 ‹ 4. It is necessary to mention that Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 came into force on 14.7.1981 except section 21 which was to come into force on the date to be notified by the government Section 21 was similar to section 16-G of the act. It came into force on 1.4.1981. The effect of notification dated 27.12.1983 was that the RIGS ceased to have jurisdiction to grant approval to resolution of termination. The RIGS ceased to have jurisdiction to grant approval to resolution of termination. The RIGS granted approval on 7.5.85 to the resolution dated 30.4.81 sent by the management terminating the service of the respondent no. 2. On 7.5.85 the jurisdiction of approval vested in the commission. The RIGS did not have any power on 7.5.85. to grant approval to the resolution of the petitioner. The approval granted by RIGS was without jurisdiction. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that RIGS could grant approval to the resolution of the management. He relied on proviso to subsection (1) inserted by Section 3 of the amending act (U.P. Act No.19 of 1985). It is extracted below :- 3. Amendment of Section 21-In Section 21 of the principal Act; (a) in sub-section (1), the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely :- " Provided that, where reference for prior approval of the Inspector was made in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, before January 1, 1984, no prior approval of the Commission shall be necessary and such reference shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisos of that Act as if this Act had not come into force" Amending Act 1985 by which proviso to Section 21 was inserted came into force on 12.6.1985. Therefore, when RIGS granted the approval on 7.5.85 the proviso was not in existence. The claim of the petitioner is that since the petitioner had referred the resolution for approval prior to 1.1.84 the RIGS had the jurisdiction to exercise power under section 16-G and the appellate authority erroneously held that the order passed by her on 7.5.85 was beyond section 16-G. The argument does not appear to be correct. Proviso added to section 21 has already been extracted. A literal reading of the proviso would make the section unworkable. For instance what would happen to the orders passed by the commission between 1.1.84 till 11.6.85. To avoid any anomaly the legislature did not make the amendment retrospective. The proviso would, therefore, apply to those references, which were made prior 1All] Committee of Management and another V. .Joint Director of Education and another 221 to 1.1.84 and had not been disposed of till 12.6.1985. Since in this case the reference made to RIGS prior to 1.1.84 was disposed of by her on 7.5.85, the amended provision was not attracted to it. The jurisdiction and power of RIGS has to be seen, in law, as it stood on the date i.e. 7.5.85 when she granted approval. And on that date the RIGS could not have exercised jurisdiction under section 16-G. Therefore, the appellate authority did not commit any error in deciding and allowing the appeal of respondent no. 2. 6. As regards the argument that the appellate authority committed an error of law in not deciding the appeal on merits as this court has specifically directed to decide all questions raised by the parties it is sufficient to say that the submission is devoid of any merits as the appellate authority did hold that the order on merits was not correct. In any case since the appellate authority held that the RIGS did not have any jurisdiction to exercise power under section 16-G he did not commit any error in not adjudicating on other points in detail. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly urged that the Joint Director of Education having held that the appeal filed by the respondent no.2 was not maintainable, therefore, he should have refrained from deciding the appeal. I am not inclined to accept this argument as respondent no.2 has challenged the order dated 7.5.85 passed by the RIGS to be without jurisdiction. It could not have been challenged in any other forum. She had no other option except to challenge the order passed by the RIGS by way of appeal before Joint Director of Education, who has rightly allowed the appeal. Further even if there would have been some merit in this argument the order of RIGS being without jurisdiction the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 8. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is dismissed. But it is necessary to issue directions about payment of salary and determination of post retiral benefits between the parties. The respondent no.2 has pointed out that she has attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2000, therefore, she is entitled for her entire arrears of salary and pension and other post retiral benefits of the post of principal. Since the services of the respondent no. 2 were terminated by the petitioners and approval granted to the resolution for termination was without jurisdiction, the respondent no.2 is entitled for her salary. Therefore, she shall be paid salary from the date of suspension till she retired as principal of the institution. The petitioners shall calculate her salary with increases, if any, and the dearness allowance and other allowances payable to her and the amount so calculated shall be paid to her within three months. The petitioners shall fix her pension on the salary which would have been payable to her on the date of retirement. The respondent no.2 shall be deemed to be in continuous service till she superannuated. The respondent no.1 shall ensure compliance of this order and issue necessary directions to the petitioners and educational authorities for paying salary and pension and other post retiral benefits of respondent no.2 within a further period of three months. Parties shall bear their own costs. INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001 222 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21 %/( $. <2* - 7+( +21 %/( $. <2* - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI &RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV «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y the Court 1. All the Respondents are represented by the Standing Counsel and the petition is being disposed of in accordance with Rules of Court. 2. Committee of Management, Saheed Bhawani Dutt Joshi (Ashok Chakra) Higher Secondary School, Chaprun Tharali, Chamoli through its Manager ( for short called the College) by means of this petition under Article 226, Constitution of India prays for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay salary to its teaching and non-teaching staff with effect from March 2000 (i.e. entire arrears of salary) and further continue to pay their salary month by month in accordance with law. 3. Petitioner manages the College, which was initially a Junior High School governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act which was on the grant-inaid list to ensure regular payment of salary to the staff of the said College at