SMT. RAJ KUMARI CECIL versus MANAGING COMMITTEE OF LAXMI NARAIN BHAGWATI DEVI VIDYA MANDIR, GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 27-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. RAJ KUMARI CECIL 
v. 
MANAGING COMMITTEE OF LAXMI NARAIN BHAGWATI DEVI 
VIDYA MANDIR, GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL 
NOVEMBER 27, 1997 
[SUJATA Y. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921-Section 16-E, 16-F, 16-G-
Appointment as Principal-Grant of approval, a pre condition-When 
C approval not granted for appointment of a candidate-No requirement to get 
consent for termination of her services as Principal. 
The appellant was working as Headmistress of the Junior school of the 
respondent. The school was upgraded and recognised as Higher Secondary 
School. The Managing Committee published an advertisement inviting 
D applications for the post of Principal. The appellant applied for the post and 
she was selected by the Managing Committee. Her appointment was, however, 
subject to the approval under the provision of the Intermediate Education Act, 
1921. She was placed on probation for one year from the date of joining her 
duty. Thereafter, her services were tJ>rminated on the ground that the 
competent authority under the Act did not approve her appointment to the 
E post of Principal in as much as the appellant did not possess the requisite 
qualifications as prescribed for the post of principal in the Higher Secondary 
School. The appellant filed a civil suit claiming relief for declaration that she 
was a confirmed Headmistress in the school of respondent and for mandatory 
injunction that respondent be ordered to confirm her on the post of 
F 
.G 
H 
Headmistress in that school. She also prayed for decree of perpetual injunction 
for restraining the respondent from removing her from the post of 
Headmistress and also from making new appointment and holding any 
selection. The trial court granted the appellant decree of declaration as 
prayed but refused to grant the relief of injunction. However the High Court, 
dismissed the suit. Writ petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed. 
This appeal had been filed against the judgment of the High Court. The 
appellant submitted that she being a confirmed Headmistress of the school, 
on upgradation of the school when she did not satisfy the qualifications of 
the Principal, she continued as a Headmistress being confirmed employee 
of the respondent. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
542 
RAJ KUMAR! v. M.C.O. L.N. BHAGWA Tl DEVI [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 
543 
HELD : The appellant had no case either in the suit or in the writ A 
petition. The appellant ceased to be Headmistress on upgradation of school 
of the respondent to the Higher Secondary School as the post was upgraded. 
She did not possess qualifications to be appointed as Principal of Higher 
Secondary School. Her qualifications were not relaxed. The Competent 
Authority under the Intermediate Education Act did not grant approval for B 
her appointment as a Principal which is a pre-condition under the law. Since 
the appointment itself was not approved it was not necessary for the Managing 
Committee of the School to get consent of the authority concerned for the 
termination of her services as a principal. The civil suit and the writ petition 
filed by her had no basis and were rightly dismissed by the High Court. 
(549-C-DI C 
1.2. The proviso of Regulation 16 of Chapter III of the Regulation 
under the Intermediate Education Act says that in such circumstances 
Headmistress could have continued as an assistant teacher, if she satisfied 
other qualifications as laid down for a teacher for a Higher Secondary 
School. No such plea was ever raised and record also did not show if at any D 
time the appellant ever based her case on such a plea. (549-H; 550-Al 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3155-56 
of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.86 of the Allahabad High E 
Court in S.A.No. 371/81 and W.P.No. 2608of1986 
Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli for M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co. for the 
Appellant. 
S. V. Deshpande for the Respondent. 
K.S. Chauhan, (K.P.S. Dalal) Adv. for R.B. Misra for the State. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. WADHWA, J. The appellant who was working as Headmistress 
F 
in the school of the respondent filed the present appeal against the judgment G 
dated December 19, 1986 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow 
Bench). The judgment of the High Court decides two matters : (I) second 
appeal filed by the respondent, the Managing Committee of the school arising 
out of a civil suit filed by the appellant and (2) a writ 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.