Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
facie include non-teaching staff as well as
Class-IV employees also.
Regulation 31 has been amended twice:
By the Notification No.789 (1)/15 (7)-75
dated 1st March 1975 published vide No.
Board-7/562-V-8 (Board September,
1974) Allahabad dated 10th March 1975
(the 1975 Notification). By this
notification two clauses were added in
Regulation 31.
By Notification No.8372/15 (7)-
12(103)/77 Lucknow: dated 27th
February 1978 (the 1978 Notification). By
this Notification the two clause added by
the 1975 Notifications were modified.
The effect of the first clause added by the
1975 Notification was to empower the
principal to award any punishment to
Class-IV employees and his order is
subject to appeal before the Committee of
Management. The second clause provides
further appeal to the D.I.O.S./Regional
Inspector. These clauses are further
amended by the 1978 Notification,
however substantially they remain the
same."
49. Thereafter, the Court came to the
conclusion that in view of the aforesaid
amendments as noted above and the
addition of the two clauses in Regulation
31, the Principal or Headmaster of the
Institution became competent to terminate
the services of a Class-IV employee with
further provision of an appeal and a
representation to the Inspector of Schools
thereafter. The Division Bench carefully
examined the impact of the said
amendments and came to the conclusion
that the purpose of including the two
clauses as brought by way of amendments
in 1975 and 1978, clearly establish that
the Principal is empowered to terminate
the services of a Class-IV employee
without taking prior approval of the
Inspector. Such a decision by the
Principal or Headmaster was to be final,
subject to an appeal before the Committee
of Management and then a further appeal
to the Inspector. The relevant paragraphs
of the said judgment namely paragraphs
24 to 26 are quoted below :
"24. The services in the present case
were terminated on 12.6.1977 and as such
the Regulation 31 as amended by the
1975 notification was applicable. The
question is, whether Regulation 31 as
amended by the 1975 Notification
requires prior approval of the Inspector
before terminating the services a Class-IV
employee or not.
It is correct that the cases (mentioned
in paragraph 19 of this judgment) do
support the submission of the plaintiffappellant.
However, these cases have not
taken into account the amendment made
in Regulation 31 by the 1975 or 1978
Notification. They have taken into
account Regulation 31 as it was originally
framed. These cases have not considered
the Regulation 31as amended from time
to time and cannot be pressed to show that
prior approval was necessary before
terminating services of Class-IV
employees. This question has to be
decided in the light of the Regulation 31
of Chapter-III as amended.
Regulation 31 as it was originally
framed required prior approval of the
D.I.O.S. before terminating service of an
employee. However, after addition of two
clauses in Regulation 31 in 1975 it clearly
empowered the principal to terminate the
services of Class-IV employee. It further
provided an appeal to the Committee of
Management and thereafter to the
Inspector itself. In case prior approval of