Allowed

C/M Sri H.P. Singh(Junior High School) Krishi Inter College and Another v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2021WRIA/4304/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the District Basic Education Officer's order disapproving a teacher's suspension. The court ruled that once a Junior High School is upgraded to an Intermediate College, the District Inspector of Schools retains exclusive jurisdiction, and the DBEO lacks authority under the relevant Education Act. Referring to a coordinate bench judgment, the court held the impugned order i

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the order dated 11.02.2021 disapproving the suspension was declared illegal, without jurisdiction, and set aside.

C/M Sri H.P. Singh(Junior High School) Krishi… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4304 of 2021 Petitioner :- C/M Sri H.P. Singh(Junior High School) Krishi Inter College And Another

¶2

Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kushagra Vaibhav Singh,Pradeep Kumar Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents no.1 to 4 and Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5.

¶5

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has confined his prayer only with respect to the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras, respondent no.3.

¶6

The petitioner is a Committee of Management of Sri H.P. Singh (Junior High School) Krishi Inter College, Biawar, Sadabad, District Hathras. It appears that a suspension order dated 15.09.2020 has been passed by the petitioner suspending the respondent no.5. The District Basic Education Officer, Hathras, respondent no.3, took cognizance on the suspension order of respondent no.5 and disapproved the same by an order dated 11.02.2021 on the ground that it has lapsed.

¶7

The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that the School, which was earlier a Junior High School, has been upgraded to the High School and thereafter Intermediate College, and therefore, the District Basic Education Officer has no jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the suspension order of respondent no.5.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only authority who is vested with the power to consider the approval or disapproval of the suspension order, is the District Inspector of Schools under Section 16-G (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In this respect, he has relied upon a judgement of this Court passed in Writ-A No.5114 of 2019 (C/M Kishan Lal Ram Kumar Junior High School, Bareilly and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

¶9

He submits that the issue involved in the present case has been dealt with by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of C/M Kishan Lal Ram Junior High School (supra).

¶10

Per contra , Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 could not dispute the legal proposition, as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner's Committee of Management has not forwarded the papers of suspension of respondent no.5 for taking decision under Section 16-G (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to the District Inspector of Schools.

¶11

Be that as it may, is is not in dispute that the School is upgraded to the Intermediate College.

¶12

This Court in the case of C/M Kishan Lal Ram Junior High School (supra) has held that where the School has been upgraded to the High School or Intermediate, the District Basic Education Officer has no jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the suspension order of a Teacher or Principal who is working in the upgraded High School or Intermediate College, which is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

¶13

Thus, in view of the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the order dated 11.02.2021 disapproving the suspension of respondent no.5 is illegal and without jurisdiction and deserves to be set-aside.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Writ-A No.5114 of 2019 (C/M Kishan Lal Ram Kumar Junior High School, Bareilly and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

¶15

Order Date :- 16.7.2021/NS

C/M Sri H.P. Singh(Junior High School) Krishi Inter College and Another v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Sri H.P. Singh(Junior High School) Krishi Inter College and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Anand Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar and 22 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Pooja Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nitish Mishra and 8 Others Vs Union of India and Another

Kunal Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others