# Smt. Shashi Kala Singh v. D.I.O.S., Maharajganj and others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 251
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1997-01-16
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shashi-kala-singh-v-d-i-o-s-maharajganj-and-others-39187
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

251 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6PW 6KDVKL .DOD 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI 6FKRROV
0DKDUDMJDQM DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $VKRN .KDUH
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 9. 6KXNOD
6KUL 5& 'ZLYHGL 6&
83
+LJK
6FKRRO
DQG
,QWHUPHGLDWH
&ROOHJH 3D\PHQW RI VDODULHV RI 7HDFKHU
DQG RWKHU (PSOR\HHV $FW 6HFWLRQ
$$7HUPLQDWLRQ RI SDUW WLPH 7HDFKHU ±
SULRU DSSURYDO IURP ',26 QRW REWDLQHG
RUGHU KHOG EDG SDUWB WLPH WHDFKHU DUH
SDLG WKH KRQRUDULXP LQVWHDG RI SD\ VFDOH
$V WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV JLYHQ WKH SD\
VFDOH0DWWHU UHPLWWHG EDFN WR WKH ',26
IRU IUHVK FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LQ WKH HLJKW RI
REVHUYDWLRQ
+HOG
%HIRUH SDUWLQJ ZLWK WKH FDVH , ZRXOG
OLNH
WR
REVHUYH
WKDW
WKH
TXHVWLRQ
ZKHWKHU WKH SRVW RI 3ULQFLSDO ZLOO DOVR
FRPH XQGHU WKH SURYLVLRQV RI 6HF$$ RI
WKH $FW LV OHIW RSHQ WR EH GHFLGHG E\ WKH
'LVWW
,QVSHFWRU
RI
6FKRROV
DQG
WKH
SDUWLHV DUH JLYHQ OLEHUW\ WR KDYH WKHLU VD\
RQ WKH SRLQW EHIRUH WKH 'LVWW ,QVSHFWRU RI
6FKRROV ZKR ZLOO H[DPLQH WKH TXHVWLRQ
NHHSLQJ
LQ
PLQG
FODXVH

RI
WKH
UHFRJQLWLRQ
RUGHU
GDWHG

$SSRLQWPHQW LQ WKH LQVWDQW FDVH ZDV
PDGH QRW RQ D IL[HG KRQRUDULXP EXW LQ D
JLYHQ VFDOH RI SD\ LH 5V ,Q
FDVH LW LV IRXQG WKDW WKH SRVW RI 3ULQFLSDO
ZRXOG EH GHHPHG WR KDYH EHHQ FUHDWHG
LQ YLHZ RI FODXVH RI WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ
RUGHU ZKROH FRPSOH[LRQ RI DSSRLQWPHQW
ZRXOG EH FKDQJHG WKH SRVW RI SULQFLSDO LQ
WKDW HYHQ ZLOO JR RXW RI WKH SXUYLHZ RI
VHF $$ RI WKH $FW DQG ZLOO KDYH WR EH
ILOOHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH SURYLVLRQ RI
WKH 83 6HFRQGDU\ (GXFDWLRQ 6HUYLFH
6HOHFWLRQ %RDUGV $FW 3DUD

By the Court

1. Premala Singhania Kanya Inter
College Siswa Bazar Maharajganj is a
recognised
intermediate
College,
the
affairs of which are husbanded by the
Committee of Management constituted
under
and
in
accordance with the
provisions
of
the
U.P. Intermediate
Education Act 1921 (In short the Act).
Though recognised under the Act, the
college has bot yet been brought within
the preview of the U.P. High School and
Intermediate
(Payment of Salary to
teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971
and recognition accorded to the Institution
is sans financial aid (Vityavihin) The
posts of teachers including Principal have
bot
yet
been
sanctioned
and
the
management has to fend on its own
resources for payment of salary to
teachers who, it would appear, have been
appointed under section 7 AA of the Act.
One of the conditions for recognition as
contained in the order dated 16.01.1997 is
"Niyamanusar
Ek
Yogya
Pradhancharya
Kee
Niyukta
Kee
Jaye". This condition in the recognition
order
being
Annexure
1
to
the
supplementary affidavit, may lead to an
inference that the post of Principal should
be deemed to have been created by order
dated 16.01.1997 itself but in the absence
specific pleading and arguments in this
regard it would be but proper to forbear
from expressing any opinion on this point.
3All] Smt. Shashi Kala Singh V. D.I.O.S., Maharajganj and others 252

2. The Petitioner herein was
appointed vide letter dated 29.6.1995, the
Principal of the college to which the Distt.
Inspector of Schools accorded approval
vide letter dated 21.6.1997 in the scale of
Rs. 2000-3500 with effect from 1.7.1995
and
attested
the
signatures
of
the
petitioner as Principal of the Institution. It
would transpire that a dispute surfaced in
which the two rival committees locked
horns, each claiming to be the validly
elected Committee of the Management.
The matter escalated to the level of the
Regional Joint Director of Education who
by his order dated 19.1.2000 tilted the
scale in favour of the Committee of
Management of which Dr. Amar Chand
Kedla was elected Manager. As a sequel
to the said order that signatyure of Dr.
Amar Chand Kedlya, as Manager of the
Institution, came to be attested by the
Distt Inspector of Schools on 20.1.2000
and on 21.1.2000, the petitioner was
placed under suspension. The petitioner
canvassed the validity of the order dated
21.1.2000 by means of writ petition
no.10660 of 2000.The said writ petition, it
is alleged, was taken up on 8.3.2000 but
the same was deferred to 9.3.2000 owing
to the strike by lawyers of the High Court.
It would appear that the petitioner
preferred another writ petition being writ
no. 9268 of 2000 for appropriate direction
interdicting the respondents therein from
interfering with the working of the
petitioner as principal of the Institution.
The writ petition came to be filed on the
premises that the suspension of the
petitioner having not been approved
within 60 days, the order of suspension
lapsed automatically in view of sec. 16
G(7) of the Act. The writ petition was
finally disposed of by judgment and order
dated 27.4.2000 (Annexure 8 to the
petition).A question arose in the said writ
petition as to "Whether the petitioner's
suspension would be approved or not"?
The Court, interlay, held "It is also
desirable that the Distt. Inspector of
Schools should pass an order one way
or the other on his own discretion
without
being
influenced
by
any
observation
made
in
this
order
after31.5.2000 in order to enable the
petitioner to conduct the examination
as Centre superintendent so hat the
examination may not be disturbed." It
was made clear by the Court that "In case
no order is passed by the Distt.
Inspector of Schools within one month
from 31st may, 2000 despite a certified
copy of the judgment is produced
before him within three weeks from
date in that event it will be deemed that
the suspension has not been approved
by the District Inspector of Schools and
deemed to have expired on the expiry
of 21st March 2000." Before any order
could be passed by the Distt Inspector of
Schools pursuant to above direction of
this Court, the services of the petitioner
came to be terminated vide order dated
29.6.2000 pursuant to decision allegedly
taken by the sequel to the direction
contained
in
the
judgment
dated
27.4.2000 of this Court, the District
Inspector of Schools took up the matter
and passed the order impugned herein
holding
that
in
financially
unaided
(vityavihin)
college,
appointment
of
teachers and employees are although not
required
to
be
approved
,m
the
appointment benign of part time nature,
yet the services of the part time teachers
are not liable to be terminated by the
Management in arbitrary manner and in
breach of the canons of natural justice.
The Management was held to be entitled
to terminate the services o part time
teacher employs but in accordance with
253 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
the procedure establish by law. The Distt
Inspector of Schools by order impugned
herein rejected the representation of the
petitioner without testing the validity of
the order terminating the services of the
petitioner on the anvil of principles
aforestated.

3. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare for
the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the
respondent no. 1 and Sri V.K. Shukla and
Sri R.C. Dwivedi for the respondents 2
and 4. The respondents counsel did not
propose to file any counter affidavit in the
case and the writ petition is being
disposed of finally at the motion hearing
stage itself.
4. It has been urged by Sri Ashok
Khare that the Distt Inspector of Schools
having held that the services of part-time
teachers appointed under section 7 AA of
the act, Cannot be terminated by the
Management tin an arbitrary manner
without following the principles of natural
justice, ought to have examined whether
the petitioner services were terminated in
violation of the principles of natural
justice as embodied in regulations 36 and
37 of chapter III of the Regulations; the
impugned order passed by the Distt
Inspector of Schools is impaired by error
of law inasmuch as the Distt Inspector of
Schools failed to advert himself to the
question as to whether the services of the
petitioners were terminated in accordance
with the procedure established by law and
in consonance with the rules of natural
justice; and section 16 G (3) (a) which
inhibits termination of services "Except
with prior approval in writing of the
Inspector" has to be imported for its
application on all ours in relation to parttime teachers as well. On behalf of the
respondents, it has been submitted that
Sec. 16-G of the Act and regulation 36
and 37 of chapter III of the Regulations
have no application to part-time teachers
whose services are governed by Sec.7AA
of the Act read with the G.O. No.
6522/15-8-3065/85 Shiksha (8) Anubhag,
Lucknow dated Oct. 15, 1986, a copy of
which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to
the Supplementary affidavit.

5. I have devoted my anxious
consideration to the submissions made
across the bar. Sec. 7 A B excludes
applicability of provisions of the U.P.
High School and Intermediate College
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers & other
Employees) Act, 1971 and those of the
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Selection
Board Act, 1982 but does not exclude the
applicability of Sec. 16 G of the Act. Subsection (1) of Sec. 16 G explicitly
envisages that every person employed in a
recognised Institution would be governed
by such condition of service as may be
prescribed
by
Regulations
and
any
agreement between the Management and
such employees in so far as it is
incongruous with the provisions of the
Act or with the Regulations and any
agreement between the Management and
such employees in so far as it is
incongruous with the provisions of the
Act or with the Regulations shall operate
In vacuum. Sub section (3) prohibits
dismissal,
removal,
discharge
from
service or reduction in rank of diminution
in emoluments and service of notice of
termination except with the prior approval
in writing of the District Inspector of
Schools, Sub section (4) of Sec. 7AA of
the Act provides that no part-time teacher
shall be employed unless he possesses
such minimum qualifications as may be
prescribed. Appendix A to regulation 1 of
Chapter II of the Regulating prescribes
the qualifications for appointment of the
Head of an institution and other teachers.
3All] Smt. Shashi Kala Singh V. D.I.O.S., Maharajganj and others 254
The same qualification are prescribed for
part-time teachers too. Part-time teachers
are, however, paid "Such honorarium as
may be fixed by the state Government by
general or special order in this behalf."
This is clear from Section 7 AA of the
Act which read as under:
"7-AA Employment of part time teachers
or
part-time
instructors
(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, the management of an institution
may, from its own resources, employ"
(i) as an interim measure part-time
teachers for imparting instructions in any
subject or group of subjects or for a
higher class for which recognition is
given or in any section of an existing class
for which permission is granted under
Section 8-A.;
(ii) Part-time
instructors
to
impart
instructions in moral education or any
trade or craft under socially useful
productive work or vocational course
(2) No recognition shall be given and no
permission shall be granted under section
7-a unless the Committee of Management
furnishers such security in cash or by way
of Bank guarantee to the Inspector as may
be specified by the State Government
from time to time.
(3) No
part-time
teacher
shall
be
employed in an institution unless such
conditions may be specified by the State
Government by order in this behalf are
complied with.
(4) No part-time teacher or part-time
instructor shall be employed unless he
possesses such minimum qualifications as
may be prescribed.
(5) A part-time teacher or a part-time
instructor shall be paid such honorarium
as maybe fixed by the State Government
by general or special order in this behalf.
(6) Nothing in this Act shall preclude a
personal already serving as a teacher in an
institution from begin employed as a part
-time teacher or a part-time instructor
under section 7-AA
6. Appointment of a part-time
teacher under section 7 AA in an
institution, which has been given vitavihin
recognition's not required to be made in
the manner prescribed by Sec. 16 F of the
Act and the regulations made thereunder.
But that by itself does not lend support to
the
interpretation
that the part-time
teachers appointed under section 7 AA of
the Act could be given tertiary treatment
and dealt with in arbitrary fashions by the
Management. An element of public
interest
is
involved
both
in
the
appointment and termination of services
of such teachers in that the duties and
functions of such teachers have the
complexion of public nature. No person
having requisite qualification prescribed
in Appendix A to regulation of chapter II
of the Act can be appointed a part-time
teacher under section 7 AA of the Act and
once a teacher is appointed under section
7 AA, he acquires a right to be dealt with
reasonably by the management. The
principle contained in Sec. 16 G (3) (a) of
chapter III of the Regulations made under
the Act, being of regulatory nature, would
be attracted even in relation to a part-time
teacher appointed under section 7 AA of
the Act and by this reckoning, obligation
is cast upon the Distt Inspector of Schools
to ensure that such teachers are not dealt
with by the Management in antagonism of
the principles of natural justice. It would
be contrary to public policy and public
interest to clothe the Management of an
"Institution " with unfettered power to
terminate
the
services
of
part-time
teachers who perform as much public
function as regularly appointed teachers.
Even the Distt Inspector of Schools was
of the view that the Management could
255 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
not terminate the services of part-time
teachers arbitrarily and in breach of the
canons of natural justice but he failed to
examine whether in the present case, the
Management acted arbitrarily and in
violation of the rules of natural justice
which are embodied in regulations 36 and
37 of chapter III of the Regulations made
under the Act. The non-obstinate clause
notwithstanding in section 7 AA overrides
the provisions of the Act in so far as
method of appointment of part-time
teachers and instructors is concerned. In
my opinion, it does not exclude the
applicability of Sec. 16 G of the Act and
related provisions of the Regulations,
Section 16-E (10) of the Act will also be
attracted in appropriate case e.g. where
the appointee does not possess the
requisite qualification, the appointment
will be liable to be cancelled by
competent authority. Though there is no
need for creation of posts of part-time
teachers,
employment
of
part-time
teachers too is 'Niyamit' (regular) subject
to certain conditions as visualised by
condition no 4 of the G.O. dated
15.10.1986 since prior approval of the
Distt Inspector of Schools as Visuallsed
by Sec. 16 G(3) of the Act has not been
examined on the anvil of canons of justice
and fair play, the order impugned herein
cannot be sustained.

7. Before parting with the case, I
would like to observe that the question
whether the post of Principal will also
come under the provisions of Sec. 7AA of
the Act is left open to be decided by the
Distt Inspector of Schools and the parties
are given liberty to have their say on the
point before the Distt Inspector of Schools
who will examine the question keeping in
mind clause 5 of the recognition order
dated 16.1.1997 Appointment in the
instant case was made not on a fixed
honoralum but in a given scale of pay i.e.
Rs.2000-3500. In case, it is found that the
post of Principal would be deemed to
have been created in view of Clause 5 of
the recognition order, whole complexion
of appointment would be changed the post
of Principal in that event will go out of
the purview of Sec. 7AA of the Act and
will have to be filled in accordance with
the provision of he U.P. Secondary
Education Service Selection Boards Act,
1982.

As a result of foregoing discussion,
the petition succeeds and is succeeds and
is
allowed,
the
impugned
order
I
squashed. The Distt. Inspector of Schools
is directed to take appropriate decision in
the matter afresh in accordance with law
and in the light of the observations made
in the judgement.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DP 6LQJK 7UXFN 'ULYHU RI 7UXFN 1R
03 .$ &R 0DKHQGUD 6LQJK
5HVLGHQW RI 9LOODJH DQG 3RVW 8GL 'LVWULFW
(WDZDK 2WKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 6WDWLRQ +RXVH
2IILFHU 3ROLFH 6WDWLRQ .DXQFK 'LVWULFW
-DODXQ DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL $VKRN .XPDU
6KUL .XQZDU 6DNVHQD