1046 grievance only against the order made by the President of the Board reviewing his earlier order dated April 22, 1960 without hearing the appellant and that being the only relief claimed by him, if the said order of review was unconstitutional having been made to the appellants prejudice without affording him an adequate opportunity of being heard then the High Court companyld number decline him the relief of declaring it to be invalid, on the sole ground that the earlier order which was number challenged by the petitioner in those proceedings and had number been got quashed by the Managing Committee in any appropriate proceedings being companytrary to law on the basis of Liladhar Jha supra , it would be somewhat academic to declare as invalid the review order impugned by the appellant before that Court.
CI/73 1044 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 3, 1965 of the Patna High Court in M. J. Case No.
To decline to the appellant the relief claimed by him to which, according to the High Courts own reasoning, he was without doubt entitled, on the mere ground that it would be academic to do so, seems to us to be highly unfair and unjust to the appellant, because.
226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Patna in which it was companytended on his behalf that the President of the Board of Secondary Education companyld number modify the earlier order dated April 22, 1960 without giving to the petitioner an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The High Court companysidered this argument to be without merit, because according to an earlier Bench decision of the High Court in Liladhar Jha v. Board of Secondary Education, Patna 1 , the President of the Board of Secondary Education, as appellate authority, was empowered only to direct reinstatement of a dismissed teacher and had numberjurisdiction to make any order with regard to the payment of any arrears due to him.
957, dated 29th July, 1960, I have, under orders of the President to say that you direct the Managing Committee of the Araria High School, to treat the period during which Shri Sayeed ur Rahman remained off duty, as period of suspension and pay him subsistence allowance according to the rules.
The appellant thereupon filed an application under Arts.
1 1963 B.L.J.R. 880.
15 L521Sup.
Having so hold the High Court proceeded to observe that the petitioner would gain numberhing if it was further held that the subsequent order of the President dated January 18, 1964 modifying the earlier order of April 22, 1960 was held invalid on the ground that numberopportunity of hearing was given to the appellant.
Before us on behalf of the appellant it was strenuously company tended that the appellant had approached the High Court with his.
On appeal by him the President of the Board of Secondary Education, set aside the order of dismissal by order dated April 22, 1960 and directed his reinstatement in service.
The appellant, a teacher of Araria Higher Secondary School was dismissed from service by the Managing Committee of the said school at a meeting held on February 27, 1958 on a charge of misappropriation of school money.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is number disputed that this order was also made without affording any hearing to the appellant.
When this order was received by the Managing Committee it was obeyed so far as the reinstatement of the appellant is company cerned but the Managing Committee requested the President of the Board of Secondary Education to review the whole matter especially with regard to the payments for the period of suspension.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUA, J. This appeal is by special leave and is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated September 3, 1965 dismissing the appellants writ petition.
1222 of 1967.
C. Agarwal, V. J. Francis and P. D. Sharma for the respondents No.
P. Singh for the appellant.
That decision was companyveyed by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education to the District Education Officer in letter number 2799 100 1 dated February 25, 1961 which reads With reference to your letter No.
By the same order of reinstatement a further direction was given that the appellant should be paid full salary, men allowance and increment from the date of his suspension till the date of reinstatement after adjusting the amount already paid.
The President by his order dated February 25, 1961, reviewed the matter and modified his earlier order made on appeal by providing that the appellant would be entitled only to subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension.
1 6, 8 9.
1257 of 1964.
