W.A. Shishak, J.@mdashHeard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Heard also Mr. A, Jagatchandra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and Mr. R.K. Sanajaoba, learned Counsel for Respondent 4.
2. The father of the Petitioner died while serving as Head Pandit of Heirok Part-I Maning Leikai Girls L.P. School on 24.12.1992, leaving behind his large family without any bread earner. The Petitioner was then a student of 3 Years Degree Course. As there was none to earn family bread he applied to the competent authority for appointment to a suitable post in the said school under the die-in-harness scheme.
3. The Petitioner was appointed as a teacher against the post of his deceased father w.e.f. 2.1.93. That order of appointment was issued by the Secretary of the said School. The appointment of the Petitioner was approved by the Inspector of Schools, Zone-III. Government of Manipur vide order dated 26.3.1993. Inspite of his service to the said post, pay and allowances were not released to the Petitioner. He submitted representation on 23.8.93 to the Minister of Education.
4. While the Petitioner was pursuing the matter regarding pay and allowances, Under Secretary to the Government of Manipur wrote a letter to the Director of Education (S) dated 17 August, 1993 stating that ''as per existing Grant-in-aid Rules appointment of a person against a vacancy in the Aided School under die-in-harness scheme is silent and appointment of Shri N. Suren Singh in the Heirok Pt-I Maning Leikai Aided L.P. School is irregular. In para 2 of the said letter the Director was requested to take suitable action as proposed. Thereafter with reference to the aforesaid letter of the Government, the Dy. Director of Education wrote a letter to the Secretary of the said L.P. School dated 21st August, 1993 regarding the appointment of the Petitioner under die-in-harness scheme. In view of the Government letter referred to in para 1 of this letter the Dy. Director stated in para 2 as under:
I am, therefore, to instruct you to cancel the appointment of Shri N. Suren Singh, approved teacher vice late N. Madhumangol Singh under the die-in-harness scheme. Further you are to reinstate immediately Km. N. Priyoshakhi Devi who was put under suspension by the committee.
At this stage it may be stated that in view of order dated 14.10.1993, the Petitioner is continuing in service at the said school.
5. Thereafter, the Secretary of the School addressed a letter to the Dy. Director Education (Lit) regarding the appointment of the Petitioner. In this letter it is pointed out that the 4th Respondent is an un-approved teacher and she was placed under suspension by order dated 24.4.1993 pending a disciplinary proceeding. It is further stated that the enquiry proceedings have been started and as such reinstatement during the pendency of the enquiry cannot be done unless the entire enquiry is dropped. Secretary sought advice from the Office of the Dy. Director. As regards the appointment of the Petitioner, it is stated that appointment was made in consonance with the bye-law of the School and also following the practices adopted by the Aided Schools in this regard. It is further stated that appointment under the die-in-harness scheme in respect of Aided School has riot been objected to in the past. It is also contended in this letter that Inspector of Schools is the competent authority to give approval to the appointment in such a case. It may be stated that the father of the Petitioner was an approved teacher of the said Aided School and in fact he was serving as the Head Pandit of the said School at the time of his death in December, 1992.
6. Director of Education (S) wrote another letter to the Inspector of Schools on 5th October, 1993. In this letter it is stated that inspite of instruction given on 21st August, 1993 to cancel the irregular appointment of the Petitioner as approved Matriculate teacher under the die-in-harness scheme and to reinstate 4th Respondent, the Secretary of the School had stated that the appointment of the Petitioner was made according to the bye law of the School and cancellation of his appointment would be against the interest of the School and public. Accordingly, the Inspector of Schools was directed to dissolve the Managing Committee of the said School on the ground that the Managing Committee had defied the instruction of the Department.
7. Order dated 7 August, 1992 was issued by the inspector of Schools, Zone-in regarding the, appointment of one Md. Safikhan as substitute teacher adjusted against the post vacated by Md. Feiz Ahamed retired on invalid ground. This was a letter of approval for the appointment of the said Safikhan on compassionate ground. It is submitted by Mr. Paonam that in respect of the Petitioner also approval was duly given by the Inspector of Schools.
8. Government affidavit states that the scheme known as die-in-harness scheme is not applicable in case of Aided Schools. It is also stated that no DPC has been held in respect of the post vacated as a result of death of the father of the Petitioner. Hence it is submitted that the appointment of the Petitioner cannot be accepted.
9. Mr. R.K. Sanajaoba who appears on behalf of the 4th Respondent also supports the contentions made on behalf of the Government. He submits that the scheme in question is not applicable to the employees of Government Aided Schools. According to him such scheme is meant for Government employees only. It is correct that there are two categories of employees in Aided Schools viz., (1) Approved Teachers and (2) Un-approved Teachers. Mr. Sanajaoba submits that since the 4th Respondent is a long suffering teacher, her chances/hopes cannot be dashed to the ground by giving appointment to the Petitioner in place of his deceased father under the die-in-harness scheme which, he submits, is not applicable to the Petitioner. He further submits that the 4th Respondent has reasonable expectation to pet regular employment and therefore it would be equitable that instead of the Petitioner, the 4th Respondent should be given the post vacated by the deceased father of the Petitioner. According to Mr. Sanajaoba, equity is in favour of the 4th Respondent.
10. Mr. Sanajaoba further submits that approval in respect of appointment of a teacher in Government Aided School is to be given by Dy. Inspector of Schools and not by the Inspector of Schools. He places reliance on V of Rule 19 of Section II of Manipur Education Code 1982. According to him when jurisdiction is assigned to Dy. Inspector of Schools, such jurisdiction is to be exercised only by the Dy. Inspector of Schools, Prima facie the submission in this regard appears to be reasonable. However, it appears to me that the Inspector of Schools being a higher authority, could perhaps exercise jurisdiction under certain circumstances. Although it is nowhere clearly explained why instead of Dy. Inspector, the Inspector of Schools had to give the approval, may be, at that time the Dy. Inspector of Schools was not readily available. May be also that a bonafide action of the higher authority is not questioned when power is exercised under certain circumstances. It is nowhere pointed out in the letter of the Director of Education regarding the exercise of power by the Inspector of Schools. It appears approval given by Inspector of Schools who is a higher authority than Dy. Inspector of Schools cannot be said to be an illegal exercise. In fact, the action of Inspector of Schools has not been questioned in the letters of the Director as well as Dy. Director (Lit).
11. It may further be stated that if the approval given by the Inspector of Schools us incompetent, such approval could have been undone by the higher authority. This has not taken place. The approval issued as regards appointment of one Md. Safikhan was given by the Inspector of Schools who also issued the approval in respect of the present Petitioner. It appears, competence of Inspector of Schools in the matter of issuance of approval has not been questioned at all by the higher authority.
12. Mr. Sanajaoba submits that ''sentiment is a poor guide to decision'' and therefore this Court should not be weighed so much by compassion in favour of the Petitioner inasmuch as the scheme in question does not apply in case of the Petitioner because of the fact that the school where the Petitioner is serving is a Govt. Aided School and because of the fact that the employees of the Govt. Aided Schools are not Govt. employees in the strict sense of the term. The primary purpose of such scheme is to mitigate the economic hardship of the family when the lone bread earner dies in harness. I am not persuaded (sic) such scheme would apply strictly only to the Government employees, as in my view to do so would defeat the primary purpose of the scheme. At the same time undoubtedly the father of the Petitioner was an approved teacher who was enjoying full scale of pay and allowances from the Government. In my view, therefore, it would be equitable that the Petitioner is given appointment in place of his deceased father under the die-in-harness scheme.
13. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned letters dated 17.8.1993, 21.8.1993 and 5.10.1993 vide Annexures-A/4, A/5 and A/7 are quashed. The Petitioner shall continue in service and he shall be entitled to receive all arrears of pay and allowances.
With the above direction this petition is disposed of.
