Allowed

Ram Bahadur Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 May 2025SPA/46/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the special appeal against the termination of teachers in a recognized primary school. The High Court held that termination requires prior written approval from the District Education Officer under the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, and such approval cannot be presumed or deemed granted if not received within a time limit. Consequently, the termination order was set asid

What did the court decide?

Special appeal allowed; termination order dated 25.06.2017 set aside; appellants entitled to all consequential benefits including salary.

Ram Bahadur Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:3532-DB

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI ASHISH NAITHANI Special Appeal No. 46 of 2020

¶4

Ram Bahadur Pandey and Another -Appellants

¶5

Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents

¶6

Presence:- Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for respondent no. 8.

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

¶9

Appellants were appointed as Assistant Teacher in a recognized Primary School run by a Society, namely, “Bhotia Jan Jati Seva Samiti Gularbhoj”. Their services were terminated vide order dated 25.06.2017 by the Chairman of Society. They challenged the termination order by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2054 of 2017 on the ground that prior approval of the Competent Authority, i.e. District Education Officer, was not obtained by the Management while terminating their services. The Writ Petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 25.06.2017. Thus, feeling aggrieved, Writ Petitioners have filed this intra-Court appeal challenging the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. The reasons for dismissing the Writ Petition are indicated in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the impugned judgment, which are reproduced below:-

¶10

“ 8. Perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that the allegations against the petitioners are that they have violated the orders of the Society and have supplied wrong information to the department. After the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

¶11

¶12

2025:UHC:3532-DB

¶13

Court dated 29.08.2014, the petitioners were reinstated in service. As the liberty was given to the management to take appropriate disciplinary action against the appellants in accordance with law for the irregularities committed by them, the Management issued show cause notices to the petitioners directing them to hand over the entire records of the Schools as well as to furnish their original testimonials. But the petitioners neither handed over the school record which was lying with them since long time nor furnished their original testimonials to the department despite several opportunities. Indisputably, petitioners have not handed over their original testimonials to the Society, which draws an inference against the petitioners that their testimonials were forged and therefore they have deliberately not handed over the same to the department for verification. As such, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is violation of principle of natural 7 justice in the present case, is not tenable, as proper opportunity was provided to the petitioners prior to passing the termination orders.

¶14

9. Insofar as the contention raised by counsel for the petitioners that the impugned termination orders have been passed without their being any approval from the respondent no.6, it has come in the counter affidavit of respondent no.8 that in compliance of the resolution dated 20.06.2017 respondent no.8, vide letter dated 07.05.2016, requested the District Education Officer (Elementary Education) District Udham Singh Nagar to grant approval for terminating the services of the petitioners. As the approval was not granted within the stipulated period by the competent authority, therefore, as per the provision contained in Basic Education Act, 1972 as well as in the Regulation of 2009 framed by the State Government, it was presumed that approval has been accepted and accorded by the competent authority, and thus almost after one year the termination orders dated 25.06.2017 has been issued by the Committee of Management.

¶15

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, writ petition is devoid of merit. Same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.”

¶16

The contention regarding prior approval, raised by appellants is discussed in paragraph 9 of impugned judgment. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that, as the Committee of Management requested for approval on 07.05.2016, and since approval was not granted by the Competent Authority within the stipulated time, therefore, it shall be deemed that approval was granted by the Competent Authority.

¶17

¶18

2025:UHC:3532-DB

¶19

Learned counsel for appellants submits that earlier also, services of appellants were terminated, and they unsuccessfully challenged the termination order in a Writ Petition, and their Special Appeal was also dismissed, however, Hon’ble Apex Court, vide judgment dated 29.08.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.9130 of 2014, held that termination orders were illegal as they were passed in violation of Rule 11 of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules 1975, and set aside the judgment rendered by this Court, and directed the Management to reinstate the appellants in service within two months. Hon’ble Apex Court however gave liberty to the Management to take appropriate disciplinary action against the appellants in accordance with law. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

¶20

“11. Rule 11 of the Rules is reproduced herein below:

¶21

11. Dismissal and removal of teachers. - No order dismissing, removing or terminating the services of a teacher or other employee of a recognised school shall be passed save with the prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari:

¶22

Provided that in case of recognised schools established and administered by minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, such an order shall not require the approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari but shall be reported to him"

¶23

12. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record.

¶24

13. It is not in dispute that the appellants were working as Assistant Teachers in recognized schools. In view of the fact that the appellants were working in recognized schools, according to Rule 11 of the Rules it was necessary to obtain prior written approval of the Basic Shiksha

¶25

¶26

2025:UHC:3532-DB

¶27

Adhikari before terminating their services. It is an admitted fact that no such prior approval had been obtained before terminating services of the appellants and therefore, there was a clear violation of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules.

¶28

14. It may be true that there might be irregularities in appointment of the appellants as Assistant Teachers in the past but as they were working in the schools duly recognized under the Rules, in our opinion, it was obligatory on the part of the Management to follow the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules while terminating services of the appellants by way of punishment.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules 1975, there is no provision for deemed approval of a proposal sent by the Management for termination/dismissal of a Teacher.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment that there is a provision in the Basic Education Act, 1972, as well as in the Regulations of 2009, framed by Uttarakhand State, under Uttarakhand School Education Act, for deemed approval of proposal sent by Management. He submits that this observation is factually incorrect, as neither in the Basic Education Act, 1972, nor in the 2009 Regulations, framed under Uttarakhand School Education Act, there is a provision for deemed approval of a proposal sent by the Management.

¶31

We find substance in the said submission. The provision of deemed approval, to a proposal for termination/dismissal of services of a Teacher, is not present in U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other

¶32

¶33

2025:UHC:3532-DB

¶34

Conditions) Rules 1975, nor in the Basic Education Act, 1972. Such provision is also not there in the 2009 Regulations, framed under Uttarakhand School Education Act. In fact, in Regulation 25 Chapter 3 of the said Regulations, it is provided that order of punishment, against teaching or non teaching employee, can be passed only with the prior approval of the District Education Officer.

¶35

It would be worth mentioning that by Section 60 of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Basic Education Act 1972, which were made applicable in State of Uttarakhand by issuing a modification order as per U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, were repealed. Thus, Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 is now applicable to (i) primary schools (ii) junior high schools and (iii) intermediate colleges.

¶36

Section 39 of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 deals with condition of service of head of institution, teachers and other employees. Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 39 of said Act, ordains that a Teacher shall not be dismissed, discharged, or removed from service, or reduced in rank, without prior approval in writing of District Education Officer.

¶37

The expression “in writing of District Education Officer” rules out the possibility of deemed approval, as approval has to be granted by a written order. Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 39 of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, is reproduced below for ready reference:-

¶38

¶39

2025:UHC:3532-DB “ Section39(3)(a)- No Principal, Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank, or subject to any discrimination emoluments, or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the District Education Officer. The decision of the District Education Officer shall be communicated within the period to be prescribed by regulations.”

¶40

The last sentence in the aforesaid provision although provides that decision of District Education Officer has to be communicated to the Management within a period to be prescribed by Regulations, however, learned counsel for the respondent rightly concedes that Regulations are silent regarding the time within which decision has to be communicated to the Management.

¶41

In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that a proposal for termination sent by the Management cannot be presumed to be approved, unless there is a provision for deemed approval in the Statute.

¶42

Even otherwise also, since the Statute provides that written approval has to be obtained from District Education Officer, then the view taken by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

¶43

Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel appearing for the Management/respondent no.8, contends that the Bye-laws of the Society authorize the Committee of Management to terminate the service of a Teacher serving in the Institution, therefore, the Chairman of the Society was well within his right to pass the termination order.

¶44

¶45

2025:UHC:3532-DB

¶46

The said contention cannot be accepted. The By-laws of the Society can not override the provisions of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, which is applicable to every recognized educational institution, including primary school. Service conditions of Teacher of a recognized school are governed by statutory provisions, therefore, in case of any conflict between the Bye-laws and such statutory provisions, Bye-laws have to give way to provision of the Statute.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the termination of service of the appellants by the Management was interferable for non-compliance of statutory provision. Learned Single Judge thus erred in dismissing their Writ Petition. We, therefore, allow the Special Appeal, and set-aside the termination order dated 25.06.2017, as well as the impuged judgment dated 15.10.2019 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2054 of 2017. Appellants shall be entitled for all consequential benefits, including salary for the period they remained out of employment.

¶48

_______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

¶49

__________________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

¶50

Dt: 6^th May, 2025

¶51

Shiksha

¶52

SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.05.13 19:44:10 +05'30'

¶53

Ram Bahadur Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bahadur Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Gopal Pushkarana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Harsh Vardhan Mishra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hansa Dutt Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand Vs Prem Singh Negi

Baboo Singh Shakya Vs State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand through Its Principal Secretary, Vs Markendey Prasad Gupta