M City Intermediate College Thru. Manager Sardar Alok Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Education And

The objection raised by Mr. Shailender Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel that against the impugned order dated 21.06.2025 an appeal is preferred by the Committee of Management before the Appellate authority which is pending consideration and no remedy can be sought for by way of instituting the present writ petition. Mr. Akash Dikshit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since there is material and substantial lapses in the procedure, therefore, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is unsustainable and the petitioner undertakes that he will not press the Appeal. Heard Mr. Akash Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailender Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Notice to opposite party no. 5 is hereby dispensed with. Instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15-03-2025, Annexure No.1, passed by the opposite party no.4 the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki, whereby a three-member committee has been illegally constituted for re-inquiry into the charges already found proved against Sri Shiv Charan Gautam, Principal of the petitioner institution as well as consequential order dated 21-06-2025, Annexure No.2 passed for the disapproval of the proposal; 2 WRIA No. 12819 of 2025 ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.4 to re-consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner Committee of Management for disciplinary action against Sri Shiv Charan Gautam, Principal of the institution, strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by the report of the illegally constituted three-member committee; iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice; and; iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner and for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Inspector of Schools, while passing the impugned order dated 21.06.2025 ,has failed to undertake the proceedings as is prescribed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921(hereinafter referred to as 'Act 21') read with regulation made thereunder. He submitted that after the resolution for dismissal of the services of respondent no. 5 was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for its approval, on the same a three member committee was constituted and after receiving the report of three members committee, the order has been passed. He added that there is no provision in the Act 21 read with regulation regarding constitution of any committee, on receiving the resolution of Committee of Management. He submitted that three members committee which was unlawfully been constituted by the District Inspector of Schools, has not only sent notice to the petitioner, but also enquired into all the material and has given exhaustive findings, and on the basis of the same, the order impugned dated 21.06.2025 is passed. He added that from the very perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the District Inspector of Schools has not applied his mind, but he on the basis of the three member committee's report, has proceeded and has passed the order impugned. He also submitted that three members committee has acted as if the Committee is empowered to take decision on the resolution sent by the Committee of Management. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the orders impugned dated

21.06.2025 and 17.03.2025, are utterly in violation of settled proposition of law as well as the provisions prescribed under the Act 21 read with regulations, therefore, submission is that the order impugned dated

21.06.2025 and consequential order may be quashed. 3 WRIA No. 12819 of 2025 On the other hand, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and submits that since the records was in bulk of more than 400 pages, therefore, as a fact finding committee, the District Inspector of Schools has constituted three members committee and after receiving the report and applying his mind, the impugned order has been passed, therefore, there is no ambiguity in the order impugned. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the disciplinary proceedings was instituted against respondent no. 5 and thereafter, the Committee of Management i.e. the petitioner sent its resolution, recommending the dismissal of services of the respondent no. 5 and upon receiving such resolution, the District Inspector of Schools vide the letter dated 15.03.2025, sought certain instructions from the Principal of the College concerned and also constituted three-member committee. This Court noticed that the Committee so constituted by the District Inspector of Schools has thoroughly enquired into the matter as if the Committee is authorized under the Act 21 or the regulation made thereunder, contrary, the fact remains that there is no such provision in the Act 21 regarding constitution of any committee for taking decision, over resolutions sent by the Committee of Management or to work as fact finding agency. This Court is also aware that since the provision prescribes for taking decisions over the resolution/decision of Committee of Management sent by District Inspector of Schools, therefore, transferring its right of decision to another body while constituting the committee, is impermissible. Further, from perusal of the order impugned dated 21.06.2025, also reveals that the District Inspector of Schools has heavily relied upon the recommendation of the committee, thus, there is non-application of mind of the District Inspector of Schools. Consequently, the order impugned dated 21.06.2025 and subsequent orders, if any, are impermissible and unsustainable. Resultantly, the orders impugned dated 21.06.2025 and 15.03.2025 are hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools is given liberty to decide matter afresh after applying his mind on the resolution/decision of the Committee of Management, by which the decision for dismissal of services of respondent 4 WRIA No. 12819 of 2025 no. 5 has been taken, within a period of two months. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed. The personal appearance of respondent no. 4/District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki is hereby exempted. November 10, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The objection raised by Mr. Shailender Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel that against the impugned order dated 21.06.2025 an appeal is preferred by the Committee of Management before the Appellate authority which is pending consideration and no remedy can be sought for by way of instituting the present writ petition. Mr. Akash Dikshit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since there is material and substantial lapses in the procedure, therefore, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is unsustainable and the petitioner undertakes that he will not press the Appeal. Heard Mr. Akash Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailender Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Notice to opposite party no. 5 is hereby dispensed with. Instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15-03-2025, Annexure No.1, passed by the opposite party no.4 the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki, whereby a three-member committee has been illegally constituted for re-inquiry into the charges already found proved against Sri Shiv Charan Gautam, Principal of the petitioner institution as well as consequential order dated 21-06-2025, Annexure No.2 passed for the disapproval of the proposal; 2 WRIA No. 12819 of 2025 ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.4 to re-consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner Committee of Management for disciplinary action against Sri Shiv Charan Gautam, Principal of the institution, strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by the report of the illegally constituted three-member committee; iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice; and; iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner and for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Inspector of Schools, while passing the impugned order dated 21.06.2025 ,has failed to undertake the proceedings as is prescribed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921(hereinafter referred to as 'Act 21') read with regulation made thereunder. He submitted that after the resolution for dismissal of the services of respondent no. 5 was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for its approval, on the same a three member committee was constituted and after receiving the report of three members committee, the order has been passed. He added that there is no provision in the Act 21 read with regulation regarding constitution of any committee, on receiving the resolution of Committee of Management. He submitted that three members committee which was unlawfully been constituted by the District Inspector of Schools, has not only sent notice to the petitioner, but also enquired into all the material and has given exhaustive findings, and on the basis of the same, the order impugned dated 21.06.2025 is passed. He added that from the very perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the District Inspector of Schools has not applied his mind, but he on the basis of the three member committee's report, has proceeded and has passed the order impugned. He also submitted that three members committee has acted as if the Committee is empowered to take decision on the resolution sent by the Committee of Management. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the orders impugned dated

21.06.2025 and 17.03.2025, are utterly in violation of settled proposition of law as well as the provisions prescribed under the Act 21 read with regulations, therefore, submission is that the order impugned dated

21.06.2025 and consequential order may be quashed. 3 WRIA No. 12819 of 2025 On the other hand, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and submits that since the records was in bulk of more than 400 pages, therefore, as a fact finding committee, the District Inspector of Schools has constituted three members committee and after receiving the report and applying his mind, the impugned order has been passed, therefore, there is no ambiguity in the order impugned. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the disciplinary proceedings was instituted against respondent no. 5 and thereafter, the Committee of Management i.e. the petitioner sent its resolution, recommending the dismissal of services of the respondent no. 5 and upon receiving such resolution, the District Inspector of Schools vide the letter dated 15.03.2025, sought certain instructions from the Principal of the College concerned and also constituted three-member committee. This Court noticed that the Committee so constituted by the District Inspector of Schools has thoroughly enquired into the matter as if the Committee is authorized under the Act 21 or the regulation made thereunder, contrary, the fact remains that there is no such provision in the Act 21 regarding constitution of any committee for taking decision, over resolutions sent by the Committee of Management or to work as fact finding agency. This Court is also aware that since the provision prescribes for taking decisions over the resolution/decision of Committee of Management sent by District Inspector of Schools, therefore, transferring its right of decision to another body while constituting the committee, is impermissible. Further, from perusal of the order impugned dated 21.06.2025, also reveals that the District Inspector of Schools has heavily relied upon the recommendation of the committee, thus, there is non-application of mind of the District Inspector of Schools. Consequently, the order impugned dated 21.06.2025 and subsequent orders, if any, are impermissible and unsustainable. Resultantly, the orders impugned dated 21.06.2025 and 15.03.2025 are hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools is given liberty to decide matter afresh after applying his mind on the resolution/decision of the Committee of Management, by which the decision for dismissal of services of respondent 4 WRIA No. 12819 of 2025 no. 5 has been taken, within a period of two months. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed. The personal appearance of respondent no. 4/District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki is hereby exempted. November 10, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench