Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.State of U.P. and others 1051
employees Regulations 77 to 82 would
apply only when necessary directions in
this regard are issued by the State
Government. Provisions in Regulations 9,
12, 13, 14, 16 to 20, 27, 28, 54, 55 to 65
and 97 would not apply in respect of such
employees."
12. From a plain reading of the
aforesaid Regulation, it would be evident
that various Regulations would be
applicable in the case of Class IV
employees for the purpose of
confirmation and other service conditions,
but Regulation 31 has not been made
applicable in the case of Class IV
employees. It is, at this stage, to apt to
quote Regulation 37, which reads as
follows:-
"37. Soon after the report of the
proceedings and recommendation from
the inquiring authority are received, the
Committee of Management shall after
notice to employee, meet to consider the
report of the proceeding and
recommendation made and take decision
on the case. The employee shall be
allowed, if he so desires, to appear before
the Committee in person to state his case
and answer any question that may be put
to him by any member present at the
meeting. The Committee shall then send a
complete report together with all
connected papers to the Inspector or
Regional Inspectress as the case may be,
for approval of action proposed by it.
But, regarding fourth-class
employees, no report shall be sent to
the Inspector or Inspectress for
approval. Abovesaid all proceedings in
this regard shall be done by appointing
authority."
13. It has been contended on behalf
of Class IV employees that prior approval
from the District Inspector of Schools is
sine qua non for dismissing Class IV
employee and in support of the
submission, reliance has been placed on
the following judgments of this Court :-
Shankar Saran Vs. Vesli Inter College,
[1991 (1) UPLBEC 467], Daya Shankar
Tewari Vs. Principal, R.D.B.M.
Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Neogaon, Mirzapur and others, [1998 (2)
UPLBEC 1101], Principal, Rastriya Inter
College, Bali Nichlaul, District
Maharajganj and another Vs. District
Inspector of Schools, Mahrajganj and
others, [2000 (1) UPLBEC 707], Sita
Ram Vs. District Inspector of Schools,
Allahabad and others, [2000 (3) E.S.C.
1880 (All.)], Committee of Management,
St. Charles Inter College, Sardhana and
others Vs. District Inspector of Schools,
Meerut and others, [2001 (1) UPLBEC
487], Ram Khelawan Maurya Vs. District
Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others,
[2002 (4) ESC 201].
14. However, counsel representing
the Committee of Management and the
Principal, contend that prior approval of
the District Inspector of Schools is not
necessary before terminating the services
of Class IV employees and in support
thereof, reliance has been placed on the
following judgments of this Court:
Principal, Shitladin Inter College,
Bagbana, District Allahabad Vs. District
Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and
another, [1994 (3) ESC 112 (All)], Swami
Vivekanand Uchchatar Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Unnao and another Vs.
District Inspector of Schools, Unnao and
another, [1998 (3) A.W.C. 1940 (L.B.)],
Ali Ahmad Ansari Vs. District Inspector