AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Yog, J.—The present writ petition pertains to the year 1988. At the time of admission, a Division Bench passed an order directing suspension of the operation of the impugned order dated 1111988 as consequence hereof petitioner''s services were terminated.
A counteraffidavit along with stay vacation application was filed by one Satya Ranjan Banerji on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and it appears that after hearing Counsels for the parties this Court passed order dated 321989 and as a consequence there of it was left open to the discretion of the Respondents whether to take or not to take work from the petitioner with the condition that the salary will be paid to him each month by the 20th of succeeding month whatever may be the position regarding actual working of the petitioner in the college and without entering into the controversy as to whether the petitioner voluntarily did not attend duties, whether he was prevented by the Manager for discharging his duties.
On the above facts. I propose to decide this writ petition finally at this stage with the consent of learned Counsels for the parties, inasmuch as the writ petition is pending since 1988 and further that the time taken in deciding the interim matter, it shall also taken the same time during which this writ petition can be disposed of on merits. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. J.K. Kalra, reported in 1996 (3) UPLBEC 169, it is incumbent upon the management of minority institution also to obtain approval from the concerned District Inspector of Schools and in absence of the same, the order of termination will remain inoperative. The fact remains that the legal position was not settled and it was otherwise held by other decision of this Court prior to the Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Smt. J.K. Kalra (supra). However, in view of the pronouncement in the case of Smt. J.K. Kalra (supra), it becomes a statutory obligation upon the Committee of Management to submit the papers to the concerned District Inspector of Schools by passing a resolution proposing to terminate the service and the concerned District Inspector of School will decide the question of according or with holding its approval after perusing the material on record and pass suitable order in accordance with law.
Since the matter is quite old and pendency of litigation in such matter is bound to affect both the parties, namely the petitioner as well as the Management, it is in the interest of the institution that the controversy in the instant case is set at rest. It will, however, be open to the Management as well as the petitioner to interact and take into account fresh circumstances, events, reconsider the whole issue and pass suitable resolution for consideration of concerned District Inspector of Schools. This is implied that the Committee of Management is even free to taken action, which it may deem fit and proper, by giving proper notice while taking decision on the question of according/with holding the approval to the proposed termination of the petitioner.
The petitioner has specifically urged a ground in the writ petition that the impugned order is illegal and could not be passed without obtaining approval from the District Inspector of Schools. It is expedient that this writ petition should be allowed.
The writ petition is allowed with the direction to Respondent No. 1 to take suitable action with in three months from today and submit necessary papers for approval, otherwise the District Inspector of Schools, in the light of the above observations, is in a position to consider and decide the issue with in one month there after. No order as to costs.