Allowed

Sri Ranu Rathor and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2018WRIA/10584/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a writ petition challenging an order rejecting selection for a Class-IV post. The High Court analyzed whether prior permission under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was required at the time of the vacancy. Relying on prior precedent and the exclusion of prior approval under the 2009 amendment, the Court quashed the lower authority's rejection and remitted the matter fo

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.09.2010 was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Regional Level Committee for re-examination and decision within three months.

Sri Ranu Rathor and Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10584 of 2011

¶4

Petitioner :- Sri Ranu Rathor And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Narain Rai,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

The short point involved in the writ petition is that as to whether any prior permission from the Director of Secondary Education was required to proceed for selection for recruitment on a Class-IV post in the Institution as per regulation 101 of Chapter III of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as it existed at the time when the post in question came to be advertised.

¶7

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the vacancy had fallen vacant in the year 2007-08 and the permission was sought by the Principal of the Institution on 02.12.2008 which was accorded by the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter to be referred as 'DIOS') on 09.01.2010 and accordingly the advertisement was issued and the Principal of the Institution namely the 7th respondent proceeded to make selection on a class-IV post. The papers were forwarded to the competent authority through DIOS for necessary approval be accorded to the selection made of the petitioners who were adjudged to be best candidates for the class-IV post for which advertisement was made and selection held.

¶8

Another argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that decision ought to have been taken by the Regional Level Committee but the Joint Director of Education has himself taken the decision which is contrary to the Government Order dated 19.12.2000.

¶9

Per contra , the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel

¶10

¶11

representing respondent State authorities defended the order for the reasons assigned in the order itself.

¶12

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also put emphasis upon the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by DIOS wherein he has rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the present writ petition is pending before High Court.

¶13

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, I find that the order impugned dated 14.09.2010 has been passed on a sole consideration that the prior permission of the Director of Education (Secondary) was not taken before proceeding with the recruitment and selection on class-IV position in the Institution.

¶14

It is admitted to the parties that regulation 101 came to be amended in the year 2009 vide Amending Notification No. 8/898 w.e.f. 31.12.2009 vesting the Director of Education (Secondary) with a power to sanction prior permission for making necessary selection and appointment on Class-IV and Class III posts in the Institution recognized under Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Prior to the above amendment, the regulation 101 of Chapter III of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read as under:

¶15

^^101& fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh] fujh{kd ds iwokZuqeksnu ds flok; fdlh ekU;rkizkIr] lgk;rkizkIr laLFkk ds f'k{k.ksRrj LvkQ esa fdlh fjfDr dks ugha Hkjsxk

¶16

izfrca/k ;g gS fd teknkj ds in dh jhfDr dks fujh{kd }kjk Hkjus dh vuqefr nh tk ldrh gS^^

¶17

In the case of Jagdish Singh v. State of U.P. and others (2006) 2 UPLBEC 1851 it has been held by this Court that the prior permission which is prescribed for under Regulation 101 only relates to a position, where the selection has been held and permission is sought to be made an appointment as per selection held. The settled legal

¶18

¶19

position as well as interpretation of regulation 101 of Chapter III of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as held in Jagdish Singh's cases still occupies the field issue of prior approval in relation to regulation 101 prior to 2009 is no more res integra .

¶20

In view of the above, the order passed by the Joint Director of Education dated 14.09.2010 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby quashed.

¶21

The matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent i.e. Regional Level Committee, Bareilly Region, Bareilly to re-examine the matter in the light of provisions as contained in the relevant regulations prior to Amending Act of 2009 and take a decision strictly in accordance with law after examining the records and verifying the selection process conducted by the Principal of the Institution. Necessary orders may be passed after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as Principal of the Institution and also the Committee of Management within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶22

Writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations and direction.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.11.2018 IrfanUddin

Sri Ranu Rathor and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ranu Rathor and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anurag Harsh and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Suman Lata Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 25 Others