Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.State of U.P. and others 1069
sanction. We agree with the submission of
Sri Ojha that a combined reading of
Regulations 31 and 37 makes it amply
clear that the District Inspector of Schools
is not required to undertake any such
exercise, which is to be done only by the
Head of the Institution in the case of Class
- IV employees. The submission is,
therefore, devoid of substance and has
been noted only to be rejected.
64. We have also perused the notes
submitted by Sri R.C. Singh annexing
therewith the General Principles of
Interpretation as contained in Chapter II
of the Statutory Rules of Interpretation,
by Justice G.P. Singh. Having given our
anxious consideration to the said Rules, as
contained therein and as pointed out by
Sri R.C. Singh, we find that said Rules on
the contrary militate against the
submissions as advanced on behalf of the
employees pointed out hereinabove. The
aforesaid principles have been considered
in a large number of authorities and the
conclusion drawn is that the intent and
purpose of the provisions in the light of
the enactment made, has to be considered
in order to avoid any absurdity. We have
already pointed out that by a reading of
the Regulations, it is more than clear that
the Rule making authority clearly
intended to exclude the applicability of
prior sanction as contained in Regulation
31 in respect of Class-IV employees. To
add further, would be repeating what has
already been observed hereinabove.
65. Another aspect of the matter,
which clarifies the intention of the Rule
making authority as pointed out by Sri
R.K. Ojha is that in respect of Class-III
employees, Regulations 44 and 44-A were
expressly included under Chapter III,
which envisage a separate procedure in
respect of disciplinary action for the
clerical cadre of employees. This
however, illustrates that the Rule making
authority did not apply any other
provision to Class-IV employees and
specifically empowered the Head of the
Institution, namely the Principal or the
Headmaster to take action at his end in
respect of a disciplinary proceeding
against a Class-IV employee. The
aforesaid illustration further removes the
cloud and expresses clarity on a
comparison of the provisions that had
been referred to hereinabove.
66. Responding to the submissions
that were raised, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned Chief Standing Counsel appears
to be right in his submissions that the
Rule making authority clearly intended to
restrict the meaning of the word
'employees' occurring in Regulation 31 in
accordance with Regulation 100 to mean
that a prior sanction would not be
required in the case of a Class-IV
employee. We accept his submission that
the wisdom of the legislature should not
be doubted and the Rule making authority
will be presumed to be conscious of the
departure that was deliberately made for
the procedure to be adopted in the case of
Class-IV employees.
67. Having laid threadbare the first
principles on which we have interpreted
the provisions, we have no hesitation in
coming to the conclusion that there is no
requirement under the Regulations for a
prior sanction or approval of the Inspector
of Schools in respect of order of
termination of Class-IV employees.
68. Coming to the decisions that
have been cited at the Bar, we may point
out that in the case of Shankar Saran Vs.