Allowed

C/M St. Marks Society and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2020WRIC/9878/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a minority institution, unaided management disputed suspension of principal causing salary arrears. Writ court quashed State authorities' orders as ultra vires, but directed salary payment via officiating principal to prevent staff hardship.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of District Magistrate and District Inspector of Schools dated 13.3.2020 and 29.5.2020 were quashed. Petitioner was directed to submit salary bills of undisputed staff under signatures

C/M St. Marks Society and 2 Others Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9878 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M St. Marks Society And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Sankalp Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.P. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shashank Shekhar, additional chief standing counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Udai Chandani for respondent no. 5. Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, notices need not be issued to respondent no. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage itself, without calling for any further affidavit in the matter.

¶6

Petitioner before this Hon'ble Court is a minority un-aided institution recognised by respondent no. 4 Board and is imparting education upto intermediate level. It is aggrieved by two orders passed by the State authorities contained in Annexures- 8 and 13 to the writ petition, respectively. The order contained in Annexure-8 dated 13.3.2020 is an order passed by the District Magistrate, Jhansi. This order reveals that the then Principal i.e. respondent no. 5 (under suspension then and now terminated) appeared in his office alongwith a representation highlighting dispute between him and the management. The District Magistrate in his order under challenge has constituted an inquiry committee consisting of four officers presided over by the Additional District Magistrate (Admn.) as its Chairman to examine the dispute between management and respondent no. 5. The District Magistrate also refers to similar disputes arising in respect of another institution for which a separate committee has been constituted.

¶7

The second order is by the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi, which notices the fact that the chairman of the managing committee has placed the principal of the institution i.e. respond net no. 5 under suspension vide its order dated 7.3.2020. The inspector also notices that on account of dispute in the office of Principal salary has not been paid to the teaching and non-teaching staff for the month of March and April, 2020. It is also recorded that manager of the institution has orally informed the inspector that there are no allegations

¶8

against the principal of the institution and that principal has not been suspended by him. The Inspector consequently has proceeded to direct the management to submit salary bill of the staff engaged in petitioner institution under the joint signatures of manager and respondent no.5.

¶9

The orders are primarily assailed on the ground that interference made by the State authorities are not referable to any exercise of statutory power by them, particularly as the institution is unaided and is being run by a minority. It is also urged that respondent no. 5 had been placed under suspension and the District Magistrate and the District Inspector of Schools have no jurisdiction, in law, to adjudicate merits of the suspension order passed against him. It is also submitted that subsequently the suspended Principal has been terminated which is challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 4789 of 2020. Contention is that the District Inspector of Schools cannot direct salary to be paid to staff members under the signatures of a suspended Principal.

¶10

Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General states that the anxiety on part of the State authorities was merely to ensure that no untoward incident happens in the institution on account of non payment of salary to the staff members, and that the District Magistrate otherwise never intended to interfere in the affairs of the minority institution. It is also urged that the anxiety on part of the State authorities was only to ensure payment of salary to teachers/ staff particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 adopts the stand taken by the Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State authorities.

¶11

So far as the claim of respondent no. 5 is concerned, his writ petition is pending and, therefore, this Court is not required to examine his rights in present proceedings.

¶12

Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for petitioners states that petitioner institution does not intend to deny payment of salary to any of its staff member and the difficulty in payment of salary has arisen only because of dispute raised by the respondent no. 5 and the arbitrary interference in its affairs by the State authorities. He submits that the officiating principal alongwith the manager shall submit the salary bills of all teaching and non teaching staff of the institution (except respondent no. 5) forthwith, provided the authorities of the State do not unnecessarily interfere in the affairs of the institution.

¶13

Having examined the materials placed on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that the interference at the level of District Magistrate and the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi is not referable to exercise of any power in law, particularly when the institution is an unaided minority institution. Once the institution had placed respondent no. 5 under suspension and he has subsequently been terminated, the legality of such order could be examined only by the competent Court or by the competent authority alone, in accordance with law. No provision of law is shown in which the District Magistrate or the Inspector gets an authority to interfere in such matters. The constitution of four member committee for the purposes of investigating the matter is also wholly uncalled for. This Court nevertheless refrains from making any further observation in view of the stand taken by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the anxiety on part of the District Magistrate was merely to ensure that no untoward incident happened and that the salary is paid to legitimate staff of the institution. District Inspector of School also has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter nor he could issue any direction for submission of salary bill under the signature of respondent no. 5, once the factum of his suspension was placed and was noticed in his order itself.

¶14

In such circumstances, the orders impugned dated 13.3.2020 and 29.5.2020 are found to be without any authority of law and are consequently quashed. The petitioner institution however shall forthwith act in terms of the statement made on its behalf by its senior counsel, and submit salary bills of all undisputed teaching and non teaching staff under the signatures of the manager and the officiating principal and the withheld salary will be received to all such employees, forthwith. So far as respondent no. 5 is concerned, his right to receive salary etc. would be determined in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶15

Writ petition accordingly stands allowed. No order is however passed as to costs.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.7.2020 n.u.

C/M St. Marks Society and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M St. Marks Society and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Shanker @ Ram Shanker Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sudhir Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravendra Kumar and 35 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Brijesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Kusuma Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Sweeti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others