Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48167 of 2010. Case: Indu Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48167 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ashok Khare and Siddharth Khare, Advs. and For Respondents: C.S.C., D.P. Singh and S. Niranjan, Advs. |
| Judges | Suneet Kumar, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | 2015 (4) ADJ 524 |
| Judgement Date | March 30, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Suneet Kumar, J.
-
The Rastriya Kanya Inter College, Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur is an institution governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The Institution is being run and administered by a Society in the name and style of Rastriya Shiksha Prachar Samittee, Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur. The Institution is a duly recognized and under the grant-in-aid of the State Government. The Committee of Management was superseded several decades ago and the Institution is being managed by the Authorized Controller. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Library Peon in the Institution on 2 August 1977. The appointment of the petitioner is not in dispute though it is contended on behalf of the sixth respondent, Principal, Rastriya Kanya Inter College that the petitioner was appointed on 25 June 1975.
-
The petitioner is assailing the order dated 16.6.2010 passed by the Principal terminating the service of the petitioner. The order noted that the appointment being void as the petitioner's father-in-law Ram Chhabile Srivastava was the Manager of the then Committee of Management. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner retired on 30 June, 2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.
-
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the termination order is bad as the prescribed procedure under Regulations 35 to 37 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was not followed. The petitioner at no point of time was issued any charge-sheet nor any inquiry was conducted. The petitioner's service was terminated merely on a notice to show-cause. Further, it has been contended that the Principal being the competent authority, terminated the service of the petitioner merely relying on certain observations made by the Joint Director of Education, VIIth Division, Gorakhpur while deciding the representation of the Society, pursuant to an order dated 28 October 1997 of this Court passed in Rastriya Shiksha Prachar Sammittee, Barahalganj, Gorakhpur through its Secretary/Manager Harishanker Prasad Surraff v. State of U.P. and others, (Writ Petition No. 36397 of 1997). The Joint Director while deciding the representation on 4.5.2000 made certain observations regarding the appointment of the petitioner which cannot become the basis for termination of service of the petitioner.
-
The only question for determination is as to whether the service of the petitioner could have been terminated by the Principal without following the procedure prescribed under the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act.
-
It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner was appointed as a Library Peon. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as a Library Peon on 02 August 1977, whereas, according to the Principal, the petitioner was appointed on 25 June 1975, the appointment letter was duly signed by Ram Chhabile Srivastava the then Manager of the Institution. On the contrary, the petitioner has relied upon a document pertaining to pay fixation made on 17 January 1990 by the Office of the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools, Gorakhpur duly signed by the Accounts Officer at the office of the D.I.O.S., Gorakhpur recording that the petitioner was appointed on 02 August 1977. The date of appointment of the petitioner is not in issue. The Principal has admitted the appointment of the petitioner, the question therefore, is as to whether a permanent Class IV employee could have been terminated in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Regulations.
-
There is no denial by the Principal in the counter-affidavit to the specific averment made by the petitioner in para-graphs-20 and 22 of the petition, categorically stating that at no point of time any departmental enquiry was conduced, no charge-sheet was issued nor any inquiry officer was appointed. In para-22 of the petition, it has been averred that Ram Chhabile Srivastava was neither the Manager nor a member of the Committee of Management at the time of appointment of the petitioner on 02 August 1977. It was further asserted that Ram...
To continue reading
Request your trial