Allahabad High Court
Principal, P.N.V. Inter College And ... vs The Distt. Inspector Of Schools And Ram ... on 25 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(1)AWC253
Author: Vineet Saran
Bench: Vineet Saran
JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The short question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the dismissal of a Class IV employee of an aided institution can be made without the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Besides this, a preliminary objection has also been raised by Sri V.S. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that since neither the State of U.P. nor the Committee of Management of the College where the Class IV employee was employed had been impleaded as respondents, this writ petition would not be maintainable.
2. I have heard Sri Dwivedi S.C., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri V.S. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2 and have perused the record.
3. Very briefly the facts are that by an order dated 10.2.1984 passed by the petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 2 who was a permanent Class IV employee of the institution in question had been dismissed from service. On 25.4.1984 the appeal of respondent No. 2 to the Committee of Management was dismissed. Thereafter on 12.9.1984 the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 1 remanded the matter back to the Committee of Management for fresh decision on merits. The Committee of Management again reaffirmed its earlier order and upheld the order of dismissal dated 10.2.1984. Then vide order dated 4.2.1985 the District Inspector of Schools did not approve the dismissal of respondent No. 2. Challenging the said order this writ petition has been filed. In the meantime the petitioner No. 1 who is the principal of the institution, had already appointed the petitioner No. 2 as Class IV employee. Interestingly the Principal of the College and the newly appointed Class IV employee have joined hands to file this writ petition. Although it is not understood that how this writ petition would be maintainable jointly by the said petitioners, but I am not inclined to go into this question.
4. As regards the legal issue as to whether prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is necessary as provided under Regulation 31 or not, the same is well settled by the two decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Daya Shanker Tewari v. Principal, R.D.B.M. Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Neogaon, Mirzapur 1998 (1) E.S.C. 403 and a Division Bench decision in the case of Principal, Rashtriya Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools 2000 (1) E.S.C. 704.
5. In the case of Daya Shanker Tewari (supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court, while considering the provisions of Regulation 31 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 held that It is true that first paragraph of Regulation 31 while providing for prior approval in case of some punishment, does not refer to Class-IV employees specially but the said first paragraph providing for prior approval refers to all employees and there is no reason to presume exclusion of Class-IV employees from the applicability of the said Regulation. The subsequent paragraphs in Regulation 31 clearly refer to Class-IV employees.
6. The said judgment was cited with approval by the Division Bench in the case of Principal, Rashtriya Inter College (supra) wherein also it has been held that prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is necessary before the dismissal of Class-IV employees of an aided college. As such the dismissal of respondent No. 2 from service, without the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, was not justified in law.
7. The petitioners have not given any reply to the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 that this writ petition would not be maintainable for non-joinder of State of U.P. and the Committee of Management as respondents, except for stating that since the District Inspector of Schools, whose order is under challenge, has already been impleaded as a party, the State of U.P. or the Committee of Management would not be necessary parties.
8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Prajapati v. The District Basic Education Officer in Special Appeal No. 822 (D) of 2004 has held that a writ petition would not be maintainable against the Government officers or the employees of the State as it would lie only against the State, and if State is not impleaded as a party, the writ petition would not be maintainable. The Division Bench has also noticed various judgments of the Apex Court including that of Ranjeet Mal v. General Manage, Northern Railway, New Delhi where the Apex Court while considering a case where the writ petition had been filed challenging the order of termination from service against the General Manager of the Northern Railway without impleading the Union of India, held that "The Union of India represents the Railway Administration. The Union carries administration through different servants. These servants all represent the Union in regard to activities whether in the matter of appointment or in the matter of removal. It cannot be denied that any order which will be passed on an application under Article 226 which will have the effect of setting aside the removal will fasten liability on the Union of India, and not on any servant of the Union. Therefore, from all points of view, the Union of India was rightly held by the High Court to be a necessary party. The petition was rightly rejected by the High Court."
9. In such view of the matter this writ petition would also riot be maintainable because of non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, on the preliminary objection as well as on merits, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
11. The respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to all consequential benefits which includes payment of his arrears of salary and if the said respondent No. 2 has retired from service, he would also be entitled to the post retiral benefits. The District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur shall be at liberty to take appropriate action for recovery of any amount wrongly paid by the petitioner No. 1 to the petitioner No. 2.
12. No costs.