Prabhu Narain Singh vs Deputy Director of Education, V Region and Another

Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mangari Newada, Varanasi is a recognised institution and is governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed thereunder. The Petitioner in response to an advertisement for the post of an Assistant Teacher made an application for being appointed to the post. A selection committee was constituted and that committee selected the Petitioner on 7-8-1977. The name of the Petitioner for appointment to the post was forwarded to the District Inspector of School, Varanasi, along with the names of other candidates, who had also applied for appointment. The District Inspector of School by order dated 10-8-1972 approved the selection and appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher. On 25-5-1973, a resolution was passed by the management terminating the services of the Petitioner and another teacher Hari Shanker Pandey. This was communicated by letter dated 18-6-1973. The resolution terminating the services of the Petitioner was forwarded to the District Inspector of School, Varanasi but he refused to accord approval by his order dated 13-7-1973 subsequently, an appeal was preferred by the management before the Regional Deputy Director of Education. This appeal was allowed by the Director of Education by order dated 13-5-1975. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Education has been impugned by this petition.

The ground on which the Director of Education allowed the appeal of the management is that the appointment of the Petitioner was not made in accordance with Section 16-(F) of the Act, and as such no approval for the termination of the services of the Petitioner was necessary. In taking this view, the Deputy Director of Education has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Arya Kanya Pathsala v. Shrimati Manorama Devi Agnihotri 1971 ALJ 983. The institution, as we have seen is governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Section 16-F(1) in so far as it is material to this case provides:

...no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or Teacher of any recognised institution unless he-

(i) possesses the prescribed qualification and has been exempted under Sub-section (1) of Section 16-E:

(b) has been recommended by the selection committee constituted under Sub-section (2) or (3) as the case may be of the said section, and approved in the case of Principal or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and in case of a teacher by the Inspector....

This provision clearly indicates that a person cannot be appointed as a teacher unless approved by the District Inspector of School. In the present case, the Petitioner was given charge, and started working as a teacher before the approval of the District Inspector of School was accorded. In the case of Arya Kanya Pathsala v. Shrimati Manorama Devi Agnihotri (supra), it was held that approval of the District Inspector of School must be accorded before the appointment is made. Counsel for the Petitioner contended that inasmuch as the Petitioner started working as a teacher before the approval was given by the District Inspector of School, he did not acquire the status of a teacher and as such his service could be terminated by the management without approval of the District Inspector of School. Now, if a candidate is selected by the Selection Committee and approval is not accorded by the District Inspector of School, the candidate would not enjoy the status of a teacher. His appointment would be void - See State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip Singh and Others, . In such case, the provisions of the regulations regarding approval of termination of his services would not apply. But, in our view the decision in the case of Arya Kanya Pathshala v. Shrimati Manorama Devi Agnihotri (supra) cannot be appropriately applied to the present case. In that case, as approval to the appointment was not accorded at any stage, the candidate did not enjoy the status of a teacher. In the present case, however, although the Petitioner had started working as a teacher even before approval was accorded by the District Inspector of School, on the approval being accorded subsequently, the status of a teacher as recognised under the Act and Regulation was conferred on him as soon us approval was granted. This fact distinguishes the present case from the case referred to earlier. It was, however, contended that inasmuch as no order of appointment was passed by the management, the mere fact that approval was accorded by the District Inspector of School, did not change the status of the Petitioner. Our attention was drawn to Regulation 6 of Chapter III as also Regulation 16 of Chapter II. Regulation 6 of Chapter III runs:

All appointments shall be made under formal orders or letters of appointment with the sanction of the appointing authority.

Regulation 16 of Chapter II as it stands runs:

Order of appointment- Within two weeks of receipt of approval of the selected candidate for appointment as Principal, Headmaster or Teacher, the Manager shall, on authorization under a resolution of the Committee of Management, issue an order of appointment to the candidate mentioning therein among other particulars, the salary, scale of pay and period of probation and with instructions to join duty within a fortnight of the receipt of the appointment order. The appointment of a candidate failing to report for duty within this period will be liable to termination. A copy of the order of appointment shall be sent to the authority prescribed in Section 16-F(2) read with Section 16-G(5) for information and record to his office.

It is no doubt true that these regulations contemplate a letter of appointment, but the mere fact that management withholds the letter of appointment, cannot result in an approved candidate being deprived of his right to be appointed as a teacher on account of the purposeful lapse on the part of the management. The management can not take advantage of its own wrong, even though approval has been granted by the District Inspector of School. In the case of Junta Inter College Nagra v. District Inspector of School Ballia CMW No. 4497 of 1969 D/- 26-11-1971 (Alld.) a question arose as to whether the Committee of Management of an educational institution governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, has a discretion to refuse to appoint a person as a teacher, who has been selected by a selection committee, and his name has been approved by the District Inspector of School. This question was referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court to a Division Bench, It was held by the Bench that Regulation 16 prescribed for the performance of a mere ministerial act of issuing a letter of appointment, and if a person has been selected by a selection committee and his selection has been approved by the appropriate authority, the committee of management is bound to appoint him and the Manager is bound to issue a letter of appointment for which the committee of management is bound to grant the officer authorisation. Thus, even though the Petitioner did not enjoy the status of a teacher upto the date when approval was granted by the District Inspector of School that status was conferred on him as soon as approval was granted, notwithstanding the fact that management did not issue any letter of appointment. In such a situation, it is incumbent on the management to seek approval from the District Inspector of Schools for the proposed termination of services.

Counsel for the Respondents contended that the provisions of Section 16-E of the Act for getting approval of termination of the services of a teacher, did not apply to the case of a probationer, and inasmuch as the Petitioner was only a probationer it was not necessary to obtain approval of the District Inspector of School. This argument is negatived by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Managing Committee S.H.S. School v. Sheo Dutt Gupta 1974 ALJ 465.

The Deputy Director of Education Respondent No. 1 has set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools refusing to grant approval solely on the ground that the Petitioner did not enjoy the status of a teacher as he started working as a teacher before the approval was granted. This ground, as we have seen, is misconceived and as such the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 13-5-75 cannot be sustained.

We, accordingly, allow the petition and quash the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 13-5-75 (Annexure ''7'' to the petition). The Petitioner is entitled to his costs. This order will govern, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6422 of 1975.