Smt. Pramodini Agarwal vs Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and Others

R.R.K. Trivedi, J.—In this writ petition order was passed on 13-8-1993. However, before the order could be signed, Shri R.N. Singh learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 5 appeared and requested that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. Learned -counsel for Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel also agreed that the petition may be disposed of finally. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, hence the petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.

Facts giving rise to this petition are that vacancy for the post of head of the institution, namely Sahu Gopinath Kanya Inter College, Shyam Ganj, Bareilly(hereinafter referred to as the College) arose on 1-7-1992 on account of retirement of Smt. Vimla Rani Saxena on 30-6-1992. Petitioner Smt. Pramodini Agarwal, senior-most teacher in the college was asked by Committee of Management by resolution dated 5-12-1991 and latter dated 9-12-1991, which are annexures 2 and 1 respectively to the writ petition, to take charge from the retiring principal. Petitioner consequently took charge and started discharging all the functions of principal of the College from 1-7-1992. She continued in the office in this capacity throughout. However, the Committee of Management on 22-6-1992 passed a resolution, which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. By this resolution certain charges were levelled against the Petitioner and ultimately it was concluded that pcsitioner should be relieved of the office of principal and charge be given to Respondent No. 4 Smt, Shashi Prabha. On the basis of this resolution, order dated 28- 6.1993 was served. on the Petitioner by registered post; which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It would be appropriate to reproduce the order served on the Petitioner which is as under :-

Prabandh Samity ki baithak dinank 27-6-93 me yah nirnaya liya gaya hai ki apko arop patra dekar abshyakata anusar uski janch karai jaye. Samity ne yiha bhi nirnaya liya hai ki prastabit janch ki abadh me apka karyabahak Pmdhanacharaya pad se bane rahana uchir no hoga. Atah apko tatkal Sab se janch puma hone tak karyabahak Pradhanacharya pad se mukta karne ka nirnaya liya gaya hai taki nispaksh anch ho sake. Ap apne muj Sangre Prabakta par karyarat rahengi. Apki bartaman betan woh betanman par koi pratikul prabhab nehi parega.

Atah ap apne karyabahak Pradhanacharaya ka bhar Srimatt Shahsi Prabha (Prabakta) ko tatkal swanp den.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order Petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the resolution dated 27-6-193 and the order dated 28-6-1993 and also for a direction restraining the Respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the Petitioner as principal of the College. It has also been prayed that Petitioner be paid safety of the office of principal with effect from 1-7-1992 It has also been prayed that order be passed directing Respondent No. 6 to appoint managing director or authorised controller as there is no committee of management.

4 Learned counsel for Petitioner has submitted that the impugned resolution and the order dated 28-6-1993 amounted to punishment and if could not be enforced without prior approval in view of the provisions contained fn Section 21 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 or Section 16 (g) (3) of UP Intermediate Educa Hon Act 1921 whichever is applicable. Learned counsel has- submitted that the requrement of prior approval is mandatory and the Respondent committee of management could not relieve the Petitioner of the office of principal and ask her to work on her original post of lecturer in English which amounts to reduction in rank and also amounts to reduction of emoluments.

Learned counsel for Respondents, on the ether hand, has submitted that Petitioner was never appointed as ad-hoc principal u/s 18 or under the Removal of Difficulties Order, hence there was no, question of any '' reversion It has also been submitted that Petitioner was never paid salary for the post of principal and thus there was no question of reduction in, emoluments or reduotion in rank and prior approval as required by Section 21 of the Act was not necessary and the management is fully competent to relieve the Petitioner of the charge of the office of principal. Learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned resolution and the order were sent to the Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Respondent No. 1. However, realising the aforesaid legal position, she only kept the orders on record by way of information after taking legal opinion and no approval or disapproval was granted. The fact was communicated to the committee of management vide letter dated 5-7-1993, which is Annexure 10 to the counter affidavit: Learned counsel has also placed reliance in a judgment of this Court in Committee of Management Rani Laxmi Bai Girls Inter College, Unnao v. Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad, 1985 UP LB EC 552 and with reference to the aforesaid case it has been submitted that there could not be automatic promotion.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion the submission made on behalf of the Respondents that Petitioner was not promoted to the post oi principal cannot be accepted. There is No. dispute that Petitioner is senior most teacher of the College and she was entitled to officiate as principal. By resolution dated 5-12-1991 and the order dated 9-12-1991 the committee of management in fact had given effect to this legal position. Even if for the sake of argument, the contention of learned counsel for Respondents is accepted that Petitioner was only allowed to take charge and she was not appointed, after 14-7-1992 she became ad-hoc principal of the College in view of the amendment of Section 18 by Amending Act, i.e. U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992. Sub-section (4) of the Amended Section 18 leaves no doubt '' that a vacancy for the post of principal may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in lecturer''s grade. The facts that Petitioner is senior-most teacher and she was working in lecturer grade are not disputed. For the aforesaid facts, it has not been left either for the management or the District Inspector of Schools to do any exercise except to promote the senior-most teacher in the lecturer grade to occupy the post of principal. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the Petitioner was working in capacity of ad-hoc principal. The fact that she has not been paid salary for the office of principal could not change the aforesaid legal position as she has already . claimed payment of the emoluments for which she may be legally entitled. The terminology used in Section 21 of the. Act is so wide that it shall cover even the impugned order dated 28-6-1992, Annexure 4'' to the writ petition. Any order having effect of reduction in emoluments or in rank could not have affect until it was approved by the competent authority. In my opinion, Respondent No. 1 was not justified in not taking any decision on the fact being communicated to her by the Committee of management. The communication dated 6-7-1993, , Annexure X to the counter affidavit, by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, III Region, Bareilly was wholly misconceived. The Respondent No. 1 ought to have taken action on the intimation of the committee of management with regard to approval. If she could accord approval herself, decision 25-Rep.-1994 should have been taken by her or papers should have been forwarded to the Commission for necessary approval u/s 21 of the Act. The case relied on by learned counsel for Petitioner could not be applied in the present case as it was with regard to the legal position prior to amendment of Section 18 and the promotion which was subject matter of dispute in that case was with regard to lecturer appointed under the orders of principal. The facts of the present case are entirely different. Here the committee of management itself authorised Petitioner to assume charge of the office of principal and discharge functions. Petitioner without any objection acted for a year. In these circumstances the position of Petitioner with regard to principal could not be doubted.

Learned counsel for Respondent also submitted that an order of suspension has been passed against Petitioner on 28-7-1993 by committee of management. This fact has been tried to be brought on record by a supplementary counter affidavit. However, I do not propose to enter into this controversy which is not subject matter of the writ petition. If any such order has been passed, its legal effect may be seen by the Respondent No. 1.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is disposed of finally with the direction that Petitioner shall be treated as ad-hoc principal of the College and her functioning as such shall not be disturbed on the basis of the resolution dated 27-6-1993 '' and the order dated 28-6-1993 until duly approved by the competent authority. Respondent No. 1 is directed to proceed with the communication sent to her by the Committee of management in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.