Supreme Court rules termination of Principals illegal for lack of natural justice.

Mahipal Singh Tomar Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Mahipal Singh Tomar Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Validity of termination of services of the Appellants as Principals.
2. Compliance with the rules of natural justice.
3. Legality of the placement of the Appellants in various colleges.

Summary:

1. Validity of Termination of Services:
The appeals were directed against the orders of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the termination of the Appellants' services from their posts as Principals. The Appellants were selected by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission and placed in various colleges by the Director, Higher Education, U.P. However, the State Government directed the termination of their services based on a report by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, which found irregularities in their placement.

2. Compliance with the Rules of Natural Justice:
The State Government did not supply the Appellants with a copy of the District Magistrate's report or provide them with an opportunity to be heard before terminating their services. The Director and the Management of the Colleges also did not give any notice or opportunity of hearing to the Appellants before terminating their services. The Supreme Court concluded that the decision taken by the State Government and the consequential actions by the Director and the Management of the Colleges were nullities due to the violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule of 'audi alteram partem.'

3. Legality of the Placement:
The High Court had relied on the District Magistrate's report and held that the Appellants' placement was contrary to the statutory provisions and void. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Appellants were not directly involved in their placement and were not given a chance to contest the findings of the District Magistrate. The Court emphasized that the rules of natural justice require giving notice and an opportunity to be heard before making a decision that affects someone's rights or interests.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and declared the termination of the Appellants' services illegal. The Appellants were deemed to be continuing on the posts of Principals, subject to the conditions that any ongoing disciplinary action against them could proceed and the Director could relocate or change their placement as per statutory provisions.