Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.State of U.P. and others 1059
Either party within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of
information may appeal to the Regional
Deputy Director of Education against an
order of Inspector or Inspectress and
Regional Deputy Director of Education,
after any such additional enquiry, if any,
which he may deem fit, can affirm or
cancel or modify the order, which will be
final. On appeal of an employee, decision
of Regional Deputy Director of Education
would be given within a period of three
months."
30. The scheme of the Regulations
31 to 45 of Chapter-III, thus, do not
provide that prior approval is required for
awarding punishment of removal or
termination of a Class-IV employee from
the District Inspector of Schools."
31. Learned counsel, appearing for
the employees, namely Sri Harish
Chandra Singh and Sri R.C. Singh, have
urged that Regulation 31, clearly
stipulates that the Conditions of Service
of all Employees of an Intermediate
College including Class-IV employees are
to be governed by the same and,
therefore, the decision by the Division
Bench in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari
Vs. District Inspector of Schools,
Kushinagar And Others (supra) does not
lay down the law correctly.
32. Sri R.C. Singh vehemently urged
that the opening part of Regulation 31
leaves no room for doubt that prior
approval is required for all class of
punishments referred to therein in respect
of all employees and that such prior
approval cannot be excluded. He contends
that the latter part of the procedure, which
makes provision for appeal from the
decision of the Head of the Institution to
the Committee of Management and
further representation to the District
Inspector of Schools does not take away
the power of granting prior approval.
33. He further submits that
Regulation 37, which carves out a proviso
in respect of Class-IV employees, not
obliging the disciplinary authority to
forward papers for approval, does not
curtail the powers of District Inspector of
Schools to grant prior approval. He
contends that if such an interpretation is
given, then Regulation 31 would become
redundant and, therefore, the principle of
harmonious construction should be
applied for which, he drew support from
the conclusion drawn by the learned
Single Judge in the case of Daya Shankar
Tewari (supra). He further contends that
Class-IV employees are clearly covered
by Regulation 31, and if the legislature
has omitted the use of specific words,
then the said gap or omission, being an
accidental omission, should be filled in by
this Court by applying the tools of
purposive interpretation.
34. Shri R.C. Singh in his written
submissions has also invited the attention
of the Court to the general principles
relating to addition of words when
permissible and the duty of the Court to
avoid anomalies and ambiguity including
inconsistencies and repugnancies. The
rules of interpretation, as enunciated in
Chapter II of the Statutory Rules of
Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, have
been pressed into service. He contends
that the Court should avoid a construction
that was never intended by the legislature
and the provisions made for the protection
of an employee should be construed in a
manner that it provides for a complete
umbrella under the law to an employee,