Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
Vesli Inter College (supra), the learned
Single Judge has merely recorded
conclusions without discussing the impact
of the provisions, and it appears that no
such issues were raised therein to
contradict the opinion of the requirement
of a prior sanction. The decision in the
case of Daya Shankar Tewari (supra),
which was rendered in the year 1998,
unfortunately did not take notice of the
decision in the case of Principal,
Shitladin Inter College (supra), which had
been rendered way back in 1994 itself.
The decision in the case of Principal
Shitladin Inter College (supra), in our
opinion, has correctly construed the
provisions and we accordingly, approve
the same.
69. Unfortunately, the Division
Bench judgment in the case of Principal
Rashtriya Inter College (supra), which
approved the decision in the case of Daya
Shankar Tewari (supra) also did not
notice the reasoning given by the learned
Single Judge in the case of Principal,
Shitladin Inter College (supra). The same
was religiously followed in the
subsequent decisions in the case of Sita
Ram (supra) as well as in the decision of
Ram Khelawan Maurya Vs. District
Inspector of Schools (supra).
70. On the other hand, the Division
Bench decision in the case of Ali Ahmad
Ansari (supra) also did not take notice of
the earlier Division Bench decision in the
case of Rashtriya Inter College (supra)
and while holding that no prior
approval/sanction is required, the said
Division Bench also appears to have not
been apprised of the decision in the case
of Principal Shitladin Inter College
(supra). The other decision in the case of
Swami Vivekanand Uchchatar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya (supra), in our
opinion, does not dwell upon the
controversy presently involved and does
not contain any discussion on the issue
raised in the present matter, as such a
reference to the said decision by the
learned counsel is of no assistance in
resolving the present dispute. As noticed
above, the Court has come across the
Division Bench decision in Pujari Yadav
(supra), which has substantially answered
the question referred before us and having
taken notice of the same, we fully approve
the view taken therein.
71. In view of the conclusions, as
drawn hereinabove, we are respectfully
unable to agree with the view expressed
in Daya Shankar Tiwari's case as upheld
by the Division Bench in the case of
Principal Rastriya Inter College (supra)
and followed later on in the decisions of
learned Single Judges referred to
hereinabove.
72. We approve the view taken in
the case of Principal, Shitladin Inter
College (supra), the Division Bench
judgment in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari
(supra) and the decision in the case of
Pujari Yadav (supra) as laying down the
correct law.
73. Our answer to the questions
referred to us are as under :
(i) For awarding a punishment as
enumerated under Regulation 31 Chapter
III of the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 to a Class-IV employee of a
institution recognized under the aforesaid
Act, no prior approval or sanction from
the Inspector of Schools is required.
(ii) The Division Bench judgments in the
case of Ali Ahmad Ansari Vs. District