IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1129 of 2009 (S/S) Rajendra Singh S/o Daulat Singh Officiating Principal, C.M.D. Inter College Churiyala Haridwar. ….…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Education Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Director School Education, Nanoorkhera Dehradun. 3. Additional Director, Garhwal Region Pauri Garhwal. 4. District Education Officer, Haridwar. 5. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee District Haridwar. 6. Devi Chand Tyagi Lecturer Physics (Terminated) C.M.D. Inter College, Churiyala District Haridwar. .……….Respondents. Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah and Shri Paresh Tripathi, Advocates for respondents No. 1 to 5. Shri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 6. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 11.11.2009 and 12.11.2009, passed by respondent No. 5-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, directing the 2 petitioner to permit the respondent No. 6 to attend his duties as Lecturer in Physics in the Institute, headed by the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 6-Dr. Devi Chand Tyagi, who is a Lecturer in Physics with CMD Inter College, Churiyala, District Haridwar, was placed under suspension and due approval was sought from the District Education Officer. The present petitioner is officiating Principal of the institution. It appears that certain charges were leveled against respondent No. 6 and on conclusion of enquiry, he was recommended to be removed from service by the Committee of Management. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since respondent No. 6 has been removed from service, he cannot be permitted to work in the Institute, as directed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide impugned orders dated 11.11.2009 and 12.11.2009. 4. No doubt, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has no power to issue direction as given by him, as he is not authorized person under any law to issue such direction. However, mere said fact does not help the petitioner in this case. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 39 of Uttaranchal 3 School Education Act, 2006, provides that no Principal, Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments or served with the notice of termination from service except with the prior approval in writing of the District Education Officer. It further provides that a decision of District Education Officer shall be communicated within the period prescribed by the regulations. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show me any approval given by District Education Officer to the order of removal proposed by the Committee of Management. As such, at this stage, it cannot be said that respondent No. 6 stands removed or that he has no right of continuance in service in the Institute (unless his order of removal is approved by the District Education Officer). 5. On behalf of respondents, it is argued that since suspension order, which was approved by District Education Officer, has already been set aside, and the order of removal is yet not approved, as such, respondent No. 6 cannot be stopped from functioning as a teacher in the Institute. 6. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ 4 petition is dismissed summarily with the observation, as above. (Stay application No. 10046 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:19.11.2009 Sweta 5 6 7 8 9 10