C/M Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Inter College And Another v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi as the 5th respondent in the array of the parties during course of the day.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-institution which is admitted into grant-in-aid, assailing the orders dated 28.02.2014 and 27.05.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent, with further request to the 5th respondent not to compel the petitioners-institution for joining of the 4th respondent and payment of salary.

4. After attaining the age of retirement of Radhey Shyam Mishra who was a regular principal, one Rudra Pratap Mishra was appointed as officiating principal in the institution. When regular post was advertised by the Commission vide Advertisement No.1 of 2002, vide order dated 30.08.2003, the 4th respondent was selected and allotted to the petitioner-institution. Accordingly, the order was passed by the 5th respondent on 08.11.2003. While things stood thus, as against the 4th respondent, the first information report was lodged and subsequently, he was sent to the judicial custody.

5. Consequent to the selection, the petitioners-institution permitted the 4th respondent to join the institution as principal and with specific request for submitting original records. Subsequently, when the 4th respondent had not submitted original records pertaining to the institution namely Shri Maruti 2 WRIA No. 34802 of 2014 Vidyalay Inter College, Adilpur, Azamgarh, the committee of management has passed a resolution on 07.11.2010 placing the 4th respondent under suspension. In compliance of Section 16 G (5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1921"), all the papers were dispatched to the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi vide covering letter dated 11.11.2010. But in collusion with the 4th respondent, the District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order.

6. Subsequently, the 4th respondent approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.24274 of 2011 for subsistence allowances and also for salary. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner therein. When the District Inspector of Schools did not exercise powers under Section 16 G (7) of the Act, 1921, after lapse of more than 60 days, the petitioners-institution approached this Court by way of filing the Writ-A No.28739 of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2011 directing the District Inspector of Schools to pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

7. It is not out of place to mention that after suspension, the petitioners- institution initiated departmental proceedings against the 4th respondent vide resolution dated 07.11.2010 and inquiry was conducted and charges were framed on 11.02.2011 and the same were communicated for filing reply. Accordingly, inquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the inquiry committee to the petitioners-institution on 05.03.2011. Along with inquiry report, notice was served to the 4th respondent on 12.03.2011. Thereafter, the petitioners-institution vide resolution dated 27.03.2011 resolved to terminate services of the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the entire records were sent to the 2nd respondent under Section 21 of the Act No.5 of 1982 but as against District Inspector of Schools in collusion with the 4th respondent has passed the order on 27.07.2011 disapproving termination of the 4th respondent.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-institution approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.46373 of 2011 wherein initially interim order was granted by this Court on 24.08.2011. As against the said order, the 4th respondent preferred Special Appeal No.1987 of 2011. The said special appeal was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2011. The 2nd respondent finally passed order on 28.02.2014 which was communicated to the 3 WRIA No. 34802 of 2014 petitioners-institution on 27.05.2014 disapproving termination of the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-institution.

9. Upon consideration of the submissions made, the following orders were passed by this Court on 11.07.2014: "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Advocate, appears for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Sri Rajeev Misra, learned Advocate, has put in appearance and filed his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4. The respondents may file their counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. List this case on 20th August, 2014. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is provided that till the next date of listing the respondent no. 4 shall not be permitted to function as Principal of the College in question. The matter in respect of subsistence allowance and salary of the respondent no. 4 shall be considered on the next date of hearing. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that in the meantime the petitioners will send the bill for payment of subsistence allowance of the respondent no. 4 to the District Inspector of Schools. On receipt of the said bill, the District Inspector of Schools shall take the appropriate decision for payment thereof."

10. Based on the above averments, learned counsel for the petitioners- institution has submitted that the 4th respondent was involved in criminal case and subsequently he was convicted. In fact, that is also one of the charges in the departmental inquiry, all the charges were proved and procedure was followed while passing the termination order and in compliance to Section 21 of the Act No.5 of 1982, the petitioners-committee of management sent all the relevant records to the 2nd respondent but surprisingly, without any reason, the 2nd respondent disapproved the termination of the 4th respondent. In view of the fact that the 4th respondent was indulged in criminal case and finally he was convicted apart from other grounds, his termination was in accordance with the Act and it should be approved under Section 21 of the Act No.5 of 1982.

11. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent has vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners- 4 WRIA No. 34802 of 2014 institution from the day one was disagreed with the selection of the 4th respondent and there were several litigations pending and finally the petitioners-institution with malafides intent to oust the 4th respondent from the institution passed the orders terminating the services of the 4th respondent.

12. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned orders in accordance with Rules. Hence, there is no necessity to interfere with the said impugned orders.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners-institution has brought to the notice of this Court the orders passed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 18.11.2024 in Petition (s) For Special Leave to Appeal (CRL) No(s).15305 of 2024, suspending the sentence of the 4th respondent. In view of the said circumstances, as allegations made against the 4th respondent by the petitioners-institution are no more existing.

14. However, the fact remains that in view of the said interim order dated

11.07.2014, the 4th respondent is away from services and as decades have lapsed, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case. But considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and also on perusal of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition (s) For Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No(s).15305 of 2024, the orders dated

28.02.2014 and 27.05.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent are set aside.

15. As both the parties have jointly submitted that in view of the abolition of the Board, now the 5th respondent - District Inspector of Schools is the competent authority as per Section 16 G (3) of the Act, 1921 hence the matter is remanded to the 5th respondent - District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rules based on records and also considering the orders passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners- institution as well as the 4th respondent. This exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

16. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. September 25, 2025 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi as the 5th respondent in the array of the parties during course of the day.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-institution which is admitted into grant-in-aid, assailing the orders dated 28.02.2014 and 27.05.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent, with further request to the 5th respondent not to compel the petitioners-institution for joining of the 4th respondent and payment of salary.

4. After attaining the age of retirement of Radhey Shyam Mishra who was a regular principal, one Rudra Pratap Mishra was appointed as officiating principal in the institution. When regular post was advertised by the Commission vide Advertisement No.1 of 2002, vide order dated 30.08.2003, the 4th respondent was selected and allotted to the petitioner-institution. Accordingly, the order was passed by the 5th respondent on 08.11.2003. While things stood thus, as against the 4th respondent, the first information report was lodged and subsequently, he was sent to the judicial custody.

5. Consequent to the selection, the petitioners-institution permitted the 4th respondent to join the institution as principal and with specific request for submitting original records. Subsequently, when the 4th respondent had not submitted original records pertaining to the institution namely Shri Maruti 2 WRIA No. 34802 of 2014 Vidyalay Inter College, Adilpur, Azamgarh, the committee of management has passed a resolution on 07.11.2010 placing the 4th respondent under suspension. In compliance of Section 16 G (5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1921"), all the papers were dispatched to the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi vide covering letter dated 11.11.2010. But in collusion with the 4th respondent, the District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order.

6. Subsequently, the 4th respondent approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.24274 of 2011 for subsistence allowances and also for salary. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner therein. When the District Inspector of Schools did not exercise powers under Section 16 G (7) of the Act, 1921, after lapse of more than 60 days, the petitioners-institution approached this Court by way of filing the Writ-A No.28739 of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2011 directing the District Inspector of Schools to pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

7. It is not out of place to mention that after suspension, the petitioners- institution initiated departmental proceedings against the 4th respondent vide resolution dated 07.11.2010 and inquiry was conducted and charges were framed on 11.02.2011 and the same were communicated for filing reply. Accordingly, inquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the inquiry committee to the petitioners-institution on 05.03.2011. Along with inquiry report, notice was served to the 4th respondent on 12.03.2011. Thereafter, the petitioners-institution vide resolution dated 27.03.2011 resolved to terminate services of the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the entire records were sent to the 2nd respondent under Section 21 of the Act No.5 of 1982 but as against District Inspector of Schools in collusion with the 4th respondent has passed the order on 27.07.2011 disapproving termination of the 4th respondent.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-institution approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.46373 of 2011 wherein initially interim order was granted by this Court on 24.08.2011. As against the said order, the 4th respondent preferred Special Appeal No.1987 of 2011. The said special appeal was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2011. The 2nd respondent finally passed order on 28.02.2014 which was communicated to the 3 WRIA No. 34802 of 2014 petitioners-institution on 27.05.2014 disapproving termination of the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-institution.

9. Upon consideration of the submissions made, the following orders were passed by this Court on 11.07.2014: "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Advocate, appears for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Sri Rajeev Misra, learned Advocate, has put in appearance and filed his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4. The respondents may file their counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. List this case on 20th August, 2014. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is provided that till the next date of listing the respondent no. 4 shall not be permitted to function as Principal of the College in question. The matter in respect of subsistence allowance and salary of the respondent no. 4 shall be considered on the next date of hearing. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that in the meantime the petitioners will send the bill for payment of subsistence allowance of the respondent no. 4 to the District Inspector of Schools. On receipt of the said bill, the District Inspector of Schools shall take the appropriate decision for payment thereof."

10. Based on the above averments, learned counsel for the petitioners- institution has submitted that the 4th respondent was involved in criminal case and subsequently he was convicted. In fact, that is also one of the charges in the departmental inquiry, all the charges were proved and procedure was followed while passing the termination order and in compliance to Section 21 of the Act No.5 of 1982, the petitioners-committee of management sent all the relevant records to the 2nd respondent but surprisingly, without any reason, the 2nd respondent disapproved the termination of the 4th respondent. In view of the fact that the 4th respondent was indulged in criminal case and finally he was convicted apart from other grounds, his termination was in accordance with the Act and it should be approved under Section 21 of the Act No.5 of 1982.

11. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent has vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners- 4 WRIA No. 34802 of 2014 institution from the day one was disagreed with the selection of the 4th respondent and there were several litigations pending and finally the petitioners-institution with malafides intent to oust the 4th respondent from the institution passed the orders terminating the services of the 4th respondent.

12. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned orders in accordance with Rules. Hence, there is no necessity to interfere with the said impugned orders.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners-institution has brought to the notice of this Court the orders passed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 18.11.2024 in Petition (s) For Special Leave to Appeal (CRL) No(s).15305 of 2024, suspending the sentence of the 4th respondent. In view of the said circumstances, as allegations made against the 4th respondent by the petitioners-institution are no more existing.

14. However, the fact remains that in view of the said interim order dated

11.07.2014, the 4th respondent is away from services and as decades have lapsed, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case. But considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and also on perusal of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition (s) For Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No(s).15305 of 2024, the orders dated

28.02.2014 and 27.05.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent are set aside.

15. As both the parties have jointly submitted that in view of the abolition of the Board, now the 5th respondent - District Inspector of Schools is the competent authority as per Section 16 G (3) of the Act, 1921 hence the matter is remanded to the 5th respondent - District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rules based on records and also considering the orders passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners- institution as well as the 4th respondent. This exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

16. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. September 25, 2025 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad