http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: SMT. RAJ KUMARI CECIL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF LAXMI NARAIN BHAGWATI DEVIVIDYA MA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/11/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:                Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar                Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa Manoj Swarup. Ms.Lalita Kohil, Advs. for M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co., Advs. for the Appellant S.V. Deshpande, Adv. for the Respondent K.S. Chauhan,  (K.P.S. Dalal)  Adv. for R.B. Misra, adv. for the State.,                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: D.P. Wadhwa, J.      The appellant  who was  working as  Headmistress in the School of  the respondent  filed the  present appeal against the judgment  dated December  19, 1986  of the High Court of Judicature at  Allahabad (Lucknow  Bench).   The judgment of the High  Court decides two matters: (1) second appeal filed by the  respondent, the  Managing Committee  of  the  school arising out of a civil suit filed by the appellant and (2) a writ petition also filed by the appellant in the High court. While  the  appeal  filed  by  the  Managing  Committee  was allowed, the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.      The appellant was working as Headmistress of the junior school of  the respondent.   The  school  was  upgraded  and recognised  as   Higher  Secondary  School.    The  Managing Committee published  an advertisement  inviting applications for the post of Principal.  The appellant who was working at that time  as Headmistress  also applied  for  the  post  of Principal.  She was called for interview and was selected by the Managing  Committee.    Her  appointment  was,  however, subject  to   the  approval  under  the  provisions  of  the Intermediate Education  Act, 1921.   Appellant was placed on probation for one year from the date of joining of her duty. She joined  her post  on May  1, 1969.    Instead,  however, confirming the  appellant  to  the  post  of  Principal  the Managing Committee  by letter  dated May  1, 1970 terminated her services.   This  was on  the ground  that the competent authority under  the  Intermediate  Education  Act  did  not approve her appointment to the post of Principal inasmuch as the appellant  did not  possess the requisite qualifications

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

as  prescribed  for  the  post  of  Principal  in  a  higher secondary school.   This  led the  appellant to file a civil suit in  the court  of Munsif North, Lucknow claiming relief for declaration that she was a confirmed Headmistress in the school of  the respondent  and for mandatory injunction that respondent  be  ordered  to  confirm  her  on  the  post  of Headmistress in  the said  school and  she also  prayed  for decree  of   perpetual  injunction   for   restraining   the respondent from  removing her  from the post of Headmistress as  also   from  making  new  appointment  and  holding  any selection.    After  the  services  of  the  appellant  were terminated the respondent also re-advertised for the post of Principal  and   the  appellant   again  applied   for   her appointment to that post in pursuance to that advertisement. The trial  court granted the appellant decree of declaration as prayed  but refused  to grant  the relief  of injunction. The Managing  Committee filed an appeal against the judgment and decree  of the  trial court.  The appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.   Against that  the Managing  Committee filed second appeal in  the High Court which, as noted above, was allowed and the suit filed by the appellant dismissed.      The appellant  also filed  writ petition  in  the  High Court  praying   for  a   writ  of  mandamus  directing  the respondents to  implement the decision of the court in civil suit filed  by her  and for payment of arrears of salary and allowances to  hr.   This writ  petition was also dismissed. Aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.      There is  no dispute that the appellant did not possess the qualifications for being appointed as a Principal of the Higher Secondary  School.    It  is  also  approval  of  the competent authority  under the  Intermediate Education  act, It is  correct that  the competent  authority has  power  to relax the  qualification but  then again  it is not disputed that the competent authority did not relax the qualification for the  appointment of  the appellant  as Principal  of the Higher Secondary School of the respondent.  We may also note that when  the respondent  filed her civil suit in the court of Munsif  and also writ petition in the High Court, she did not  implead  the  competent  authority  under  Intermediate Education Act  or the  State of  U.P. as  party defendant or respondent.   Recognition and  upgradation of  the school is done by  the Board   constituted under the aforesaid Act and aid is  provided by  the State  Government.  it was admitted before us  that the  school of  the respondent   is an aided school.   That would  mean that  for payment of whole of the salary or  part of  the salary, the funds are to be given by the State  Government.   An issue  was framed  in the  trial court if  the suit  was bad  for non-joinder  of educational authorities which  issue unfortunately  was decided  against the respondent.   Perhaps not much serious thought was given to the issue so raised by the courts below.      To understand  the plea  raised by the appellant in the civil suit,  we may  refer to  the  issues  framed  therein. These are as under:      "1, Whether  the termination notice      to the  plaintiff  is  illegal  and      without reasonable cause?      2.    Whether    the    plaintiff’s      appointment   was   temporary   and      conditional as  alleged in  para 12      of the W.S.?      3. Whether the suit is bad for non-      joinder  of   necessary  party   as      alleged in  para 20  and 22  of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    W.S.?      4.  whether   the   suit   is   not      maintainable as  alleged in para 21      of the W.S.?      5. To  what relief,  if any, is the      plaintiff entitled.?      6. Whether  the suit  is barred  by      estoppel as alleged in the W.S.?      From the  judgment of  the first  appellate  court,  it appears  that   the  trial   court  decreed   the  suit  for declaration that  the appellant  continued to be on the post of Principal  though her  suit for  relief of injunction was dismissed.      When the  matter came before the first appellate court, it said  that the following points were to be considered for the purposes of the decision of the appeal:      "Whether  the  termination  of  the      plaintiff   from    the   post   of      Principal is  illegal  because,  no      prior approval  of the  educational      authorities  was   obtained  before      terminating  the  services  of  the      plaintiff?      2.   Whether   the   plaintiff   is      estopped   from   challenging   her      termination?      3. Whether the suit is bad for non-      joinder    of    the    educational      authorities?      4. Whether the learned Munsif acted      illegally in decreeing the suit for      declaration for  which no relief is      prayed by the plaintiff."      In  the   second  appeal  before  the  High  Court  the substantial questions  of law which were considered could be gathered from the impugned judgment and these are as under:      "Aggrieved against  the  decree  of      the   two    courts   below,    the      defendant-appellant  has   come  to      this court  and the two substantial      questions  of  law  on  which  this      appeal was  admitted by  this court      were  (1)   as   to   whether   the      appointment   of   the   plaintiff-      respondent would  be deemed to have      been approved under Section 16-F(2)      of the  U.P. Intermediate Education      Act as  is stood in 1969 and (2) as      to  whether   the  respondent   was      stopped from challenging the latter      dated  1.5.1970   terminating   her      services on  the  ground  that  her      appointment had  not been  approved      by  the   educational   authorities      whether after the post had been re-      advertised   and   the   plaintiff-      respondent had  applied against the      freshly advertised  post.   Another      substantial question of law pressed      was  as   to  whether   under   the      provisions of  Section  16-G(2)  of      the Act the approval from competent      authority    was     required    in      terminating  the  services  of  the      plaintiff-respondent."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    We do  not think  there can  be any  dispute that  when appointment of  the appellant was subject to approval by the competent authority  on relaxation of her qualifications for the post  of Principal, it is nevertheless necessary for the respondent  to   seek  approval   for  termination   of  the employment of the appellant.      Under Section  16-E  of  the  act,  qualifications  for appointment  as  Principals,  Headmasters  and  teachers  of different subject at different stages of the course shall be prescribed by  regulation provided  that the Board may after considering the  report of  the Director  exempt any  person from the requirements of minimum qualification having regard to  his   experience,  education   and  other   attainments. ’Director’ means  Director of  Education, Uttar  Pradesh, as defined  under  Section  2(aaa).    Section  16-F  bard  the appointment as  a Principal,  Headmaster  or  teacher  in  a recognized institution  unless  he  possess  the  prescribed qualification or  has  been  exempted  under  Section  16-E. However,  if   no  candidate   possessing   the   prescribed qualifications is  available for  appointment, the Inspector of schools  may  permit  the  institution  to  employ  as  a temporary measure  any suitable  person  for  a  period  not exceeding one  year.   Such period  may be extended with the prior approval  of the  Inspector.  Section 2(bb) of the Act defines  ’Inspector’  to  mean  the  District  Inspector  of Schools  and   includes  an   officer  authorised   by   the state Government to  perform all or any of the duties of the Inspector.   Sub section  (2) (3)  and (4)  of Section  16-F provide as to how a person is to be appointed as a Principal etc.  There are as under:      "16-      F.9(1)..........................      (2)  The   name  of   the  selected      candidate shall  be  forwarded  for      approval, in the case of a teacher,      by the  Principal or Headmaster the      Inspector,  and,  in  the  case  of      Principal  or  Headmaster,  by  the      Chairman of the selection committee      to the  Regional  Deputy  Director,      Education.  A statement showing the      names,  qualifications   and  other      particulars as may be prescribed of      all candidates who may have applied      for selection  shall also  be  sent      along with the name of the selected      candidate.     The   Inspector   or      Regional      Deputy      Director,      Education,  as  the  case  may  be,      shall give  his decision within two      weeks  of   the  receipt   of   the      relevant  papers,   failing   which      approval shall  be deemed  to  have      been accorded.      (3)  Where   the  Regional   Deputy      Director,   Education,    or    the      Inspector,  as  the  case  may  be,      disapproves  for   reasons  to   be      recorded in  writing  of  any  name      proposed under sub-section (1), the      management may,  within three weeks      of the  receipt of the disapproval,      make a representation against it to      Deputy Director  in  the  Director,      Education,  in   the  case   of   a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    teacher, and  the decision  of  the      Director   or    Regional    Deputy      Director, Education,  as  the  case      may be,  in  the  matter  shall  be      final.      (4) Where  the recommendation  made      under  sub-section   (2)  has  been      disapproved and  the representation      of the  management, if  any,  under      sub-section (4)  has been rejected,      the   selection   committee   shall      proceed  to  select  and  recommend      another  name   for   approval   as      provided under Section 16-E and 16-      F.   If the  selection so  made  is      again    disapproved     and    the      representation, if any, against the      disapproval has  not been accepted,      the   Regional   Deputy   Director,      Education, in case of a teacher and      the Director  in case  of principal      or  Headmaster   may  appoint   any      qualified person out of the list of      the  candidates  applying  for  the      vacancies  and   such   appointment      shall be final".      In this  case, when  approval of the appointment of the appellant  was  not  forthcoming  or  appointment  had  been disapproved, the  process for  selection  of  Principal  was restarted and  advertisement put  in  pursuance of which the appellant also  applied.   Reliance had  been placed  on the provision of  Section 16-G relating to conditions of service of teachers  which provides that the Principal or Headmaster as the  case may  be, could  not be  served with  notice  of termination of  service except  with the  prior approval  in writing of  the Inspector.   Section 16-G, in relevant part, is as under:      "16-G-      (1)................................      ..      (2)................................      ........      (3)(a) No  Principal, Headmaster or      teacher  may   be   discharged   or      removed or  dismissed from  service      or reduced  in rank or subjected to      any diminution  in  emoluments,  or      served with  notice of  termination      of service  except with  the  prior      approval   in    writing   of   the      Inspector.   The  decision  of  the      Inspector  shall   be  communicated      within the  period to be prescribed      by regulations.      (b) The  Inspector may  approve  or      disapprove or reduce or enhance the      punishment or approve or disapprove      of the  notice for  termination  of      service proposed by the management:      Provided  that   in  the  cases  of      punishment, before  passing orders,      the   Inspector   shall   give   an      opportunity to  the Principal,  the      Headmaster or  the teacher  to show      cause within  a  fortnight  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    receipt  of   the  notice  why  the      proposed punishment  should not  be      inflicted."      Under clause  (e) of  Section 16-G,  an appeal could be filed before  the appellate  committee against  the order of the Inspector.   Under  sub-section (4)  of Section  16-G an order made  or decision  given by  the  competent  authority under sub-section  (3) shall  not be questioned in any court and the  parties concerned  shall be  bound to  execute  the directions contained  in the  order or  decision within  the period that may be prescribed therein.      Considering  the  pleadings  of  the  parties  and  the provisions of  law set  out above  the answer  becomes quite obvious that the appellant had no case either in the suit or in  the   writ  petition.     The  appellant  ceased  to  be Headmistress on  upgradation of  school of the respondent to the Higher  Secondary School  as the post was upgraded.  She did not  possess qualifications to be appointed as Principal of the Higher Secondary School.  Her qualifications were not relaxed.   The Competent  Authority under  the  Intermediate Education Act  did not grant approval for her appointment as a Principal  which  is a pre-condition under the law.  Since the appointment itself was not approved it was not necessary for the  Managing Committee  of the school to get consent of the authority  concerned for the termination of her services as a Principal.  Her civil suit and the writ petition had no basis  and   were  rightly  dismissed  by  the  High  Court. However, our  attention  was  drawn  during  the  course  of arguments towards the provisions of Regulation 16 of Chapter III of the Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act, which is as under:      "16. The  vacancy of  a head  of an      institution  shall   be  filled  by      direct   recruitment    for   which      teachers serving in the institution      may apply  without upper age-limit,      if any:      Provided that  when an  institution      is raised  from a High School to an      Intermediate College,  the post  of      Principal shall  be filled  by  the      promotion of  the Headmaster, if he      is  qualified,   possesses  a  food      record of  service and  is approved      in the manner described in the Act.      A Headmaster  not approved shall be      retained as an assistant teacher on      the highest  post for  which he  is      qualified, provided  that  his  pay      shall not be reduced."      It was  submitted that  the appellant  was a  confirmed Headmistress  of   the  school  of  the  respondent  and  on upgradation of  the school  when she  did  not  satisfy  the qualifications of the Principal, she could not be thrown out an she  continued as a Headmistress being confirmed employee of the  respondent.   Perhaps the indication was towards the proviso of  the above  regulation which  says that  in  such circumstances  Headmistress   could  have  continued  as  an assistant teacher,  if she satisfied other qualifications as laid down  for a  teacher for a Higher Secondary School.  We are afraid no such plea was ever raised and record also does not show if at any time the appellant ever based her case on such a plea. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal.      The appeals  are, therefore,  dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7