IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 929 of 2008 (S/S) Committee of Management Adarsh Higher Secondary School Bindukhatta, District Nainital. Through its President Harish Bisauti S/o Sri R.S. Bisauti R/o Bindukhatta, Tehsil Lalkuwa, District Nainital. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Collector, Nainital. 2. District Education Officer, Nainital. 3. Additional District Education Officer (Basic) Nainital. 4. Sri Jagdish Chandra Pathak Head Master Adarsh Junior School Bindukhatta District Nainital. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Jagdish Chandra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Committee of Management of the Institution, has sought writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding respondents No. 2 and 3, to take a decision on letter 2 dated 06.11.2007 sent by it, to the authority concerned regarding termination of services of respondent No. 4. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits on record. 3) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that respondent No. 4 was initially appointed as Head Master in the year 1991, in Adarsh Junior High School, Sanjay Nagar, Bindukhatta, District Nainital, run by the petitioner. The provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, were applicable to the present case. When the respondent No. 4 was working as Head Master, in the year 2003-04, the school got upgraded and he started working as part time Principal in the Institution which is now known as Adarsh Intermediate College, Sanjay Nagar, Bindukhatta, District Nainital. It is alleged that the respondent No. 4 Jagdish Chandra Pathak while working as part time Principal committed financial irregularities for which he was placed under suspension, and enquiry was initiated against him. Respondent No. 4 challenged the suspension order by filing Writ Petition No. 15 (S/S) of 2007, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.02.2007. It appears that thereafter the petitioner was divested of the charge of Principalship, and a charge sheet was served on him. On this, he (respondent No. 4) filed Writ Petition No. 1247 (S/S) of 2007, before this Court, which was 3 disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2007, directing the disciplinary authority to conclude the enquiry expeditiously. Thereafter, enquiry proceeded and charges were found proved against the respondent No. 4. The Committee of Management met on 05.11.2007, and after hearing the respondent No. 4, recommended that his services be terminated with immediate effect. Copy of said resolution is annexed as Annexure –10 to the writ petition. It is stated in the writ petition that respondent No. 3 has not taken any decision on the resolution passed on 05.11.2007. Hence, this writ petition. 4) An affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 3 in compliance of this Court’s order dated 18.09.2008 in this writ petition, wherein it is stated that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. It is further stated by respondent No. 3 that he called both the parties for hearing before taking the decision on 17.03.2008, but parties remained absent. Thereafter, according to respondent No. 3, after unification of primary and secondary education, the power to decide the dispute vested with District Education Officer (respondent No. 2). In para 8 of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it has been stated that respondent No. 2 has entrusted the enquiry to joint enquiry committee consisting of Block Education Officer, Haldwani and one senior Principal. However, no specific reply has been given on behalf of 4 respondents as to why the decision is not being taken, since then. 5) Respondent No. 4 has filed his counter affidavit denying the charges and has challenged the validity of the resolution dated 05.11.2007, passed by the petitioner Committee of Management. It is further stated that there is no provision of law which empowers the Committee of Management to force the authority to take a decision in the matter. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 15 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, the approval of the District Basic Education Officer was required to be obtained before terminating the services of a Head Master. Learned Standing Counsel for the State pointed out that now said power is vested with the District Education Officer under Section 39(3)(a) of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006. 7) On behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 nothing has been shown to the Court why the decision has not been taken either way since the year 2007. Even if, an enquiry committee is constituted to examine the matter, it cannot sleep over the matter for an indefinite period. 5 8) In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No. 2 / respondent No. 3 to take a decision on the resolution passed by the petitioner in respect of respondent No. 4, within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is produced before such authority. (Urgency Application No. 3229 of 2009 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 30, 2009. H. Negi