COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KANYA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BAL VIDYA MANDIR, ETAH, U.P. versus SACHIV, U.P. BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD ALLAHABAD, U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 21-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KANYA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BAL A 
VIDYA MANDIR, ETAH, U.P. 
v. 
SACHIV, U.P. BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD ALLAHABAD, U.P. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 21, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic School (Recruitment and Conditions C 
of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975: Rule 11. 
Dismissal and Removal of Teachers-Minority institution-Imposition 
of penalty on teachers-Prior approval of District Basic Education Ojjicer-
Requirement of-School was established and administered by the Jain 
community which was recognized as a minority community by the State D 
Government-Assistant teacher was removed from service for acts of 
indiscipline-Single Judge held that the services of the said teacher could 
not be terminated without prior permission from the District Basic Education 
Ojjicer-Yalidity of-Held: The institution established and administered by 
the Jain Community is recognized as minority by the State Government- E 
Hence, prior approval of the District Basic Education Officer was not necessary 
before terminating the services of a teacher-Uttar Pradesh Recognized 
Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services 
of Teachers) Rules, 1978, R. 16. 
Practice and Procedure: 
Division Bench Judgment-Binding nature of-On a Single Judge of 
the same High Court-Held: A Single Judge of the High Court is bound by 
the decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court and, therefore, a 
Single Judge could not take a contrary view. 
The appellant-school was established and administered by the Jain 
community which was recognized as a minority community by the State 
Government. Respondent No. 3 was working as an Assistant Teacher in the 
appellant-school. A show-cause notice was sent to respondent No. 3 by the 
813 
F 
G 
H 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Principal of the appellant-school directing her to stop her acts of indiscipline. 
The appellant did not receive any satisfactory reply from respondent No. 3 
and, therefore, a suspension order was passed. After enquiry, respondent No. 
3 was removed from the service of the school. 
Being aggrieved, respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition before the High 
B Court contending that she could not be removed from service without taking 
prior approval from the District Basic Education Officer under Rule 11 of 
the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic School (Recruitment and Conditions of 
Strvice of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975. A Single Judge of 
the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of 
C alternative remedy under Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic 
Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of 
Teachers) Rules, 1978. 
Respondent No. 3, aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, preferred 
a Special Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division 
D Bench dismissed the Special Appeal on the ground that the appellant-school 
had been accorded the status of a minority institution and, therefore, no prior 
approval of the District Basic Education Officer for terminating the services 
of a teacher in a minority institution was required to be taken. 
In subsequent proceedings in writ petition, a Single Judge while 
E altogether ignoring the said judgment of the Division Bench had held that, in 
the Special Appeal, the Court had not considered the question regarding the 
minority status of the appellant-school and held that the services of respondent 
No. 3 could not be terminated without prior permission from the District Basic 
Education Officer. Hence the appeal. 
F 
The following questions arose before the Court:-
(1) Whether in view of the judgment of the Division Bench it was open 
to the Single Judge of the same High Court to take a contrary view? 
(2) Whether prior approval of the District Basic Education Officer was 
G required for terminating the services of a teacher in a minority institution 
under the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic School (Recruitment and 
Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1. The approach adopted by the Single Judge in this case is 
...
-
·• 
' 
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT,., SACHIV, U.P. BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD 
8 J 5 
against the settled principle of law. Law is consistent and clear that the Single A 
Judge of the High Court is bound by the decision of the D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.