This writ petition was also dismissed.
it was admitted before us that the school of the respondent is an aided school.
Instead, however, companyfirming the appellant to the post of Principal the Managing Committee by letter dated May 1, 1970 terminated her services.
The appellant ceased to be Headmistress on upgradation of school of the respondent to the Higher Secondary School as the post was upgraded.
Her appointment was, however, subject to the approval under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Against that the Managing Committee filed second appeal in the High Court which, as numbered above, was allowed and the suit filed by the appellant dismissed.
Whether the plaintiffs appointment was temporary and companyditional as alleged in para 12 of the W.S.?
The Managing Committee filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
Since the appointment itself was number approved it was number necessary for the Managing Committee of the school to get companysent of the authority companycerned for the termination of her services as a Principal.
Recognition and upgradation of the school is done by the Board companystituted under the aforesaid Act and aid is provided by the State Government.
It is also approval of the companypetent authority under the Intermediate Education act, It is companyrect that the companypetent authority has power to relax the qualification but then again it is number disputed that the companypetent authority did number relax the qualification for the appointment of the appellant as Principal of the Higher Secondary School of the respondent.
Her civil suit and the writ petition had numberbasis and were rightly dismissed by the High Court.
The Managing Committee published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Principal.
THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar Honble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa Manoj Swarup.
There is numberdispute that the appellant did number possess the qualifications for being appointed as a Principal of the Higher Secondary School.
Whether the suit is bad for number joinder of the educational authorities?
These are as under 1, Whether the termination numberice to the plaintiff is illegal and without reasonable cause?
We may also numbere that when the respondent filed her civil suit in the companyrt of Munsif and also writ petition in the High Court, she did number implead the companypetent authority under Intermediate Education Act or the State of U.P. as party defendant or respondent.
The trial companyrt granted the appellant decree of declaration as prayed but refused to grant the relief of injunction.
After the services of the appellant were terminated the respondent also re advertised for the post of Principal and the appellant again applied for her appointment to that post in pursuance to that advertisement.
The Competent Authority under the Intermediate Education Act did number grant approval for her appointment as a Principal which is a pre condition under the law.
Appellant was placed on probation for one year from the date of joining of her duty.
This was on the ground that the companypetent authority under the Intermediate Education Act did number approve her appointment to the post of Principal inasmuch as the appellant did number possess the requisite qualifications as prescribed for the post of Principal in a higher secondary school.
The appellant also filed writ petition in the High Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the decision of the companyrt in civil suit filed by her and for payment of arrears of salary and allowances to hr.
Aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.
That would mean that for payment of whole of the salary or part of the salary, the funds are to be given by the State Government.
The appellate companyrt upheld the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal.
whether the suit is number maintainable as alleged in para 21 of the W.S.?
She did number possess qualifications to be appointed as Principal of the Higher Secondary School.
To understand the plea raised by the appellant in the civil suit, we may refer to the issues framed therein.
Whether the suit is barred by estoppel as alleged in the W.S.?
She joined her post on May 1, 1969.
When the matter came before the first appellate companyrt, it said that the following points were to be companysidered for the purposes of the decision of the appeal Whether the termination of the plaintiff from the post of Principal is illegal because, numberprior approval of the educational authorities was obtained before terminating the services of the plaintiff?
Whether the plaintiff is estopped from challenging her termination?
Perhaps number much serious thought was given to the issue so raised by the companyrts below.
This led the appellant to file a civil suit in the companyrt of Munsif North, Lucknow claiming relief for declaration that she was a companyfirmed Headmistress in the school of the respondent and for mandatory injunction that respondent be ordered to companyfirm her on the post of Headmistress in the said school and she also prayed for decree of perpetual injunction for restraining the respondent from removing her from the post of Headmistress as also from making new appointment and holding any selection.
for the Appellant V. Deshpande, Adv.
She was called for interview and was selected by the Managing Committee.
From the judgment of the first appellate companyrt, it appears that the trial companyrt decreed the suit for declaration that the appellant companytinued to be on the post of Principal though her suit for relief of injunction was dismissed.
Her qualifications were number relaxed.
To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled.?
for R.B. Misra, adv.
The appellant was working as Headmistress of the junior school of the respondent.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered P. Wadhwa, J. The appellant who was working as Headmistress in the School of the respondent filed the present appeal against the judgment dated December 19, 1986 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench .
for the State.,
The judgment of the High Court decides two matters 1 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 petition also filed by the appellant in the High companyrt.
for the Respondent S. Chauhan, K.P.S. Dalal Adv.
Whether the suit is bad for number joinder of necessary party as alleged in para 20 and 22 of the S.?
The school was upgraded and recognised as Higher Secondary School.
While the appeal filed by the Managing Committee was allowed, the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.
for M s. Manoj Swarup Co., Advs.
The appellant who was working at that time as Headmistress also applied for the post of Principal.
