# Jagbeer Singh Maan v. Dy. Director of Education, Meerut & others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 47
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagbeer-singh-maan-v-dy-director-of-education-meerut-others-39628
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1All] Jagbeer Singh Maan V. Dy. Director of Education, Meerut & others
47
18. In fact, when (the Constitution
safeguards
protection
from
health
hazards, it will be in the fitness of things
to
restrain
these
persons
whose
fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g)
must yield to the fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of the
locality,) who had also breached their
own undertaking given to this Court in the
Criminal Revision. This Court cannot
wait indefinitely on account of nonframing of Bye-laws by Respondent No. 2
and must act in furtherance of achieving
the avowed object enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.

19. The fact asserted by the
petitioners
in
paragraph
26
that
Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 are slaughtering
cattle in their locality continuously for six
months without any problem has not been
countered by Respondent Nos. 2 and 6.
Respondent No.2 has erred in thinking in
his counter that the report of the S.D.M.
has stated nothing injurious whereas the
materials show to the contrary, besides
the impugned order does not even refer to
that alleged report.

20. In the counter Respondent Nos.
2 and 6 have pointed out that the Bone
Godown has already been shifted.
21. It is unbelievable that the Nagar
Panchayat has no land to which the
slaughter house can be shifted. At least
shifting of the Bone Godown shows the
availability of such a land.

22. For the reasons aforementioned,
we quash the impugned order and restrain
Respondent
Nos.
7
to
14
from
slaughtering any cattle in the slaughter
house
and
command
the
District
Magistrate, Jaunpur to close it at once
without any hitch and murmur. If
Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 so like they may
continue slaughtering in their locality
though subject to health safeguards of
others. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also
directed to search out a suitable slaughter
place expeditiously lates within three
months where Respondent Nos. 7 to 14
may carry their trade in accordance with
law.

23. This writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated as above, but in the
peculiar facts and circumstance we make
no order as to cost.

24. The office is directed to hand
over a copy of this order, if possible by
tomorrow or latest within one week to Sri
H.R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel, for
its communication to and follow up action
by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur.

25. Mr. Mishra is also directed to
inform the substance of this order by Fax
and
/or
otherwise
to
the
District
Magistrate, Jaunpur.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/(
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
*3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 3' 65,9$67$9$
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 3' 65,9$67$9$
-
-

6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R RI

-DJEHHU 6LQJK 0DDQ
«$SSHOODQW
3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'HSXW\ 'LUHFWRU RI (GXFDWLRQ 5HJLRQ ,
0HHUXW DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL $ -DLVZDO
6KUL 6KDLOHQGUD
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6&
6KUL $. *R\DO 6KUL 53 7LZDUL
6KUL 9. 6KXNOD

83 ,QWHUPHGLDWH (GXFDWLRQ $FW
6
*
UHDGZLWK
5HJXODWLRQ

DQG
,QGLDQ (YLGHQFH $FW 6 DQG
3ULQFLSOHV RI 1DWXUDO -XVWLFH 7UDQVIHU
1R HVWRSSHO DJDLQVW VWDWXWH 1R YLRODWLRQ
RI QDWXUDO MXVWLFH
+HOG
:H
DUH
DOVR
RI
WKH
RSLQLRQ
WKDW DV
WUDQVIHU ZDV QRW LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH
VWDWXWH
DQG
HYHQ
LI
WKH
RUGHU
ZDV
LPSOHPHQWHG
ZKLFK
ZDV
DJDLQVW
WKH
VWDWXWH WKHUH FDQQRW EH DQ\ HVWRSSHO
DJDLQVW
WKH
VWDWXWH
6R
IRU
DV
WKH
RSSRUWXQLW\ RI KHDULQJ LV FRQFHUQHG WKH
SHWLWLRQHU KLPVHOI KDV VWDWHG LQ WKH ZULW
SHWLWLRQ WKDW KH PDGH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ WR
WKH
'LVWULFW
,QVSHFWRU
RI
6FKRROV
RQ
 DQG RQ DQG DOVR PDGH
UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ
WR
WKH
&RPPLWWHH
RI
0DQDJHPHQW
1DWLRQDO
3XEOLF
,QWHU
&ROOHJH
-DODODEDG
GLVWULFW
0X]DIIDUQDJDU IRU VDODU\ +H DJDLQ PDGH
UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ
RQ

WR
WKH
'HSXW\ 'LUHFWRU RI (GXFDWLRQ 5HJLRQ
0HHUXW 1RWKLQJ KDV EHHQ VKRZQ E\ WKH
SHWLWLRQHU WKDW WKH RUGHU WUDQVIHUULQJ KLP
IURP
-DQWD
,QWHU
&ROOHJH
/DFKHUD
WR
1DWLRQDO 3XEOLF ,QWHU &ROOHJH -DODODEDG
ZDV LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK 5HJXODWLRQ RI
WKH
5HJXODWLRQV
IUDPHG
XQGHU
WKH
DIRUHVDLG
$FW
DQG
WKHUH
ZDV
DQ\
FRQFXUUHQFH RI WKH WZR FROOHJHV 7KH
RUGHU SDVVHG E\ WKH 'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI
6FKRROV RQ FDQQRW EH VDLG WR
EH
LOOHJDO
7KHUHIRUH
QHLWKHU
WKH
SULQFLSOH RI HVWRSSHO DSSOLHV LQ WKLV FDVH
QRZ DQ\ UXOH RI QDWXUDO MXVWLFH KDV EHHQ
YLRODWHG :H DFFRUGLQJO\ GR QRW ILQG DQ\
HUURU LQ WKH MXGJHPHQW RI WKH OHDUQHG
6LQJOH -XGJH SDUD

By the Court

1. This special appeal has been filed
by the appellant, who was the petitioner
before the learned Single Judge, against
the judgment and order dated 26.2.1996
passed by learned Single Judge.

2. The brief facts for the purposes of
this appeal are that the petitioner filed
writ petition challenging the order dated
30.3.1991 passed by the District Inspector
of Schools, Muzaffarnagar and further
prayed for a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents of pay the arrears of
salary from July 1989. The impugned
order has been filed as Annexure-21 to
the writ petition. This order shows that on
3.1.1991 the petitioner was adjusted in
National Public Inter College Jalalabad.
District Muzaffarnagar on the post of a
teacher,
which
fell
vacant.
This
adjustment was found irregular and has
been
cancelled
and
petitioner
was
reverted back to his parent school.

3. The contention of the petitioner
was that he was appointed as C.T. Grade
teacher in Janta Junior High School at
Lachera,
district
Muzaffarnagar
on
28.7.1981. The school was upgraded to
Intermediate College. Petitioner's services
were confirmed on 1.8.1982 but in the
month of June 1989 the management
stopped his salary and did not permit him
to work further. It is stated that the
petitioner informed the District Inspector
of Schools ventilating his grievance, made
representation and the District Inspector
of
Schools
told
the
Committee of
Management for the payment of salary to
the petitioner but the petitioner was not
allowed to work in the institution .
Therefore the District of Schools vide his
letter dated 9.8.1990 transferred and
adjusted the petitioner in the same status
in another institution namely, K.K. Jain
Inter
College
Khatauli,
district
Muzaffarnagar but the management of the
college refused to take work from the
1All] Jagbeer Singh Maan V. Dy. Director of Education, Meerut & others
49
petitioner. Then the District Inspector of
Schools attached the petitioner with his
office but he was not paid any salary. The
Committee of Management Junta Inter
College Lachera, district Muzaffarnagar
relieved the petitioner on 24.8.1990. Then
the District Inspector of Schools on
3.1.1991 after taking oral approval from
the Deputy Director of Education, Region
1, Meerut directed the Committee of
Management
National
Public
Inter
College, Jalalabad, district Muzaffarnagar
to adjust the petitioner in C.T. Grade. The
case of the petitioner is that he was
adjusted in that college and he joined the
college on 4.1.1991. It is stated that the
petitioner has received a letter of the
Manager of National Public Inter College,
Jalalabad dated 31.1.1991 and also of the
Principal dated 18.1.1991 demanding
official papers. The petitioner made
representation
o
14.3.1991
to
the
Committee
of
Management
National
Public Inter College, Jalalabad for the
payment of salary but no salary was paid.
The District Inspector of Schools passed
an order for single operation against the
Committee
of
Management
National
Public
Inter
College,
Jalalabad
on
13.3.1991.
The
Committee
of
Management filed Writ Petition No.8389
of 1991 against this order. A stay order
was passed by the High Court. It is stated
that though the petitioner was working in
National Public Inter College, Jalalabad
but he was not paid his salary and the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
on
30.301991
under
the
order
dated
16.3.1991 passed by the Deputy Director
of Education, Region I, Meerut withdrew
the order dated 3.1.1991. The petitioner
has challenged that order in the writ
petition.

4. The first ground of attack of the
petitioner was that before passing the
order dated 30.3.1991 no opportunity of
hearing was given to the petitioner,
therefore, the order was bad in law. The
second ground taken by the petitioner was
that the order dated 3.1.1991 which has
now been recalled has already been
implemented, therefore, it cannot be
withdrawn.

5. A counter affidavit was filed in
this case contesting the plea of the
petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by
one
Ishwar
Chandra
Tyagi,
Senior
Assistant in the office of the District
Inspector of Schools it is stated that the
services of the petitioner in Janta Inter
College Lachera, which is a recognized
institution and that of National Public
Inter College, Jalalabad, which is also a
recognized institution are governed by the
provisions of Payment of Salaries Act,
1971. It is stated that the petitioner was
adjusted in other institution, as there was
difference between management of Janta
Inter College and the petitioner. But
subsequently this order was recalled.

6. A counter affidavit has also been
filed
by
one
Chandra
Vir
Singh,
President, Committee of Management
Janta Inter College, Lachera, district
Muzaffarnagar.

7. On behalf of the petitioner it was
contended before the learned Single Judge
that the District Inspector of Schools had
no power to recall his earlier order dated
3.1.1991 and further that no opportunity
of hearing was given to the petitioner.
From the side of the respondent it was
contended that the service of a teacher is
governed by the provisions of U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
Regulations 55 to 62 under Chapter III of
the Regulations framed under the said
Act. It was further contended on behalf of
the
Committee
of
Management
of
National Public Inter College, Jalalabad
and Committee of Management of Janta
Inter
College
Lachera,
district
Muzaffarnagar that the transfer order
could not be effected in view of the
provisions of U.P. Secondary Education
Services
Commission
and
Selection
Boards Act, 1982. It was further argued
on behalf of respondent no.3 that the
concurrence of the institution where
transfer was proposed was must and since
there was no concurrence the transfer
order was bad. Learned Single Judge held
that there was no concurrence of the
management of National Public Inter
College, Jalalabad, district Muzaffarnagar
for transferring the petitioner from Janta
Inter
College
Lachera
district
Muzaffarnagar. He further held that even
if Section 16-G of the aforesaid Act
applies Regulation 59 of the Regulations
framed under the aforesaid Act prohibits
such transfer in the absence of the
concurrence of the institution where a
transfer is proposed. Therefore, the
transfer was illegal. The writ petition was
dismissed but the petitioner was given
liberty
to
approach
the
appropriate
authority. The petitioner has challenged
this order of the learned Single Judge by
means of the present special appeal.

8. Here the ground of attack is that
the learned Single Judge has completely
ignored the case of the petitioner that in
compliance of the order of the District
Inspector of Schools he had joined the
college at Jalalabad, therefore, principle
of estoppel applied in this case. His
further contention is that the District
Inspector of Schools has no authority to
review his order on the dictate of the
Deputy Director of Education as has been
done
in
this
case.
Admittedly
the
petitioner was a teacher in C.T. Grade,
therefore, provisions of U.P. Intermediate
Education Act and Regulations 55 to 62
framed under the aforesaid Act will
govern the services of the petitioner.

9. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties at length we are of the opinion
that the only point to be determined
before the learned Single Judge was as to
whether the transfer order passed by the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
dated
3.1.1991 was legal and in accordance with
law. Learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance on Section 16-G of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act whereas
learned counsel for the respondent has
placed reliance on Regulation 59 of
Chapter III of the Regulations framed
under the said Act. Relevant portion of
Section and Regulation are quoted herein
below:-

"16-G.[ Conditions of services of
Head of Institutions, teachers and other
employees] (1) Every person employed in
a recognized institution shall be governed
by such conditions of service as may be
prescribed
by
Regulations
and
any
agreement between the management and
such employee insofar as it is inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act or with the
Regulations shall be void.

(2)
Without
prejudice
to
the
generality of the powers conferred by subsection (1), the Regulations may provide
for -

(a) the period of probation, the
conditions
of
confirmation
and
the
procedure and conditions for promotion
1All] Jagbeer Singh Maan V. Dy. Director of Education, Meerut & others
51
and punishment [(including suspension
pending or in contemplation of inquiry or
during the pendency of investigation,
inquiry or trial in any criminal case for an
offence involving moral turpitude)] and
the
emoluments
for
the
period
of
suspension and termination of service
with notice.

(b) The scales of pay, and payment
of salaries .
(c) Transfer of service from one
recognized institution to another,
(d) Grant of leave and Provident
Fund and other benefits, and
(e) Maintenance of record of work
and service.

"Regulation:59- The transfer of an
employee will be permissible subject to
the conditions that (I) the Management of
the institution where the applicant is
serving in willing to release him and (ii)
the Management of the new institution to
which the applicant has applied for
transfer is willing to accept him.

Provided that the transfer application
of a person against whom disciplinary
enquiry
is
pending
shall
not
be
considered.

Provided further that an employee
shall be allowed in the new institution the
same salary as he was drawing in the
former institution."

From a perusal of the aforesaid
provisions
it
is
apparent
that
the
concurrence of the two institutions for the
transfer is a must and the finding has been
recorded by the learned Single Judge that
there is nothing to show that any such
concurrence
of
the
management
of
National Public Inter College, Jalalabad,
district Muzaffarnagar was obtained. The
transfer order is bad which is prohibited
by Regulation 59 of Chapter III of the
Regulations framed under the aforesaid
Act.

10. We agree with the view taken by
the learned Single Judge. We are also of
the opinion that as transfer was not in
accordance with the statute and even if
the order was implemented which was
against the statute there cannot be any
estoppel against the statute. So far as the
opportunity of hearing is concerned the
petitioner himself as stated in the writ
petition that he made representation to the
District Inspector of Schools on 2.4.1991
and
on
3.4.1991
and
also
made
representation
to
the
Committee
of
Management
National
Public
Inter
College,
Jalalabad.
District
Muzaffarnagar for salary He again made
representation on 21.4.1991 to the Deputy
Director of Education. Region I. Meerut.
Nothing has been shown by the petitioner
that the order transferring him from Janta
Inter College Lachera to National Public
Inter
College,
Jalalabad
was
in
accordance with Regulation 59 of the
Regulations framed under the aforesaid
Act and there was any concurrence of the
two colleges. The order passed by the
District Inspector of Schools on 30.3.1991
cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore,
neither the principle of estoppel applies in
this case nor any rule of natural justice
has been violated. We accordingly do not
find any error in the judgment of the
learned Single Judge.

11. The special appeal fails and is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Appeal Dismissed.
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 7+
7+ 2&72%(5
2&72%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

0V
.KXUUDP
&DUSHWV
3YW
/WG
$QG
DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
6WDWH
RI
83
WKURXJK
LWV
6HFUHWDU\
+RXVLQJ 83 DW /XFNQRZ DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL 9. 6KXNOD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 81 6KDUPD
6KUL 6 &KDWXUYHGL
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

UHDGZLWK
83
8UEDQ
3ODQQLQJ
DQG
'HYHORSPHQW $FW 6V
$ DQG 63XEOLF DXWKRULW\¶V DFWLRQ
IRXQG WR EH GLVFULPLQDWRU\ IULYRORXV DQG
DJDLQVW
3ROLF\
GHFLVLRQ
RI
6WDWH
*RYHUQPHQW$FWLRQ KHOG WR EH LOOHJDO
+HOG
7KH SROLF\ GHFLVLRQ WKDW WKH OLIH RI WKH
SODQ VDQFWLRQHG IRU FRPPHUFLDO EXLOGLQJV
RU JURXS KRXVLQJ VKDOO EH ILYH \HDUV ZLWK
IXUWKHU H[WHQVLRQV RQ \HDU WR \HDU EDVLV
KDV
WR
EH
LPSOHPHQWHG
E\
HYHU\
'HYHORSPHQW $XWKRULW\ FRQVWLWXWHG E\
HYHU\ 'HYHORSPHQW $XWKRULW\ FRQVWLWXWHG
XQGHU WKH $FW 7KHVH GLUHFWLRQV RI WKH
*RYHUQPHQW FDQQRW EH LJQRUHG RU LQ DQ\
PDQQHU IUXVWUDWHG 7KH DWWLWXGH RI WKH
UHVSRQGHQW $XWKRULW\ LQ SHVWHULQJ DQG
KDUDVVLQJ WKH SHWLWLRQHU LQ WKH LQVWDQW
FDVH FDQQRW EXW EH FRQGHPQHG
7KH
DFWLRQ
RI
WKH
SXEOLF
DXWKRULW\
WKHUHIRUH
PXVW
EH
EDVHG
RQ
VRPH
UDWLRQDO DQG UHOHYDQW SXUSRVH ,W PXVW
QRW EH JXLGHG E\ LUUDWLRQDO RU LUUHOHYDQW
FRQVLGHUDWLRQV ,W LV H[SHFWHG WKDW D
VWDWXWRU\ SXEOLF DXWKRULW\ PXVW H[HUFLVH
LWV SRZHUV LQ SXEOLF LQWHUHVW DQG IRU
SXEOLF JRRG 0LVXVH RI SRZHU LPSOLHV
GRLQJ
RI
VRPHWKLQJ
LPSURSHU
7KH
HVHHQFH RI LPSURSULHW\ LV UHSODFHPHQW RI
SXEOLF PRWLYH IRU D SULYDWH RQH &HUWDLQO\
WKH
GHFLVLRQV
ZKLFK
DUH
FDSULFLRXV
FDQQRW EH OHJLWLPDWH 3DUD DQG
By the Court

1. In an attempt to promote and
boost tourism in the holy city of Varanasi,
which is already on the tourist map of the
country, a number of projects have come
up. The World Bank has also sanctioned
substantial amount to bring Varanasi on
International Tourist Map of the world.
Construction of new hotels is the integral
part of the promotion of tourism. The
petitioner-company, i.e. M/s. Khurram
Carpets Pvt. Ltd. Is having a tie with
Raddison Group of Hotels and with a
view to construct a five star hotel at plot
Nos.4/1 and 4/2, Mauja Araji Line,
Mohalla Sikraul, Near Varuna Bridge,
Varanasi submitted a plan for sanction to
the
Varanasi
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"the
Authority")
constituted
under
the
provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and
Development
Act,
1973
(hereinafter
referred to as "as Act"). The proposed
five star hotel building is to have seven
floors besides basement. The plan was
sanctioned by the Authority on 9.8.1995
and an outside limit of three years was
provided to complete the construction
work, meaning thereby the life of the
sanctioned plan was to expire on 8th
August, 1998. In view of various
difficulties, the constructions as per the
sanctioned plan. Could not be completed
within the time frame. The petitioners
applied on 4.8.1998 for extension of time