Allowed

C/M Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Etawah through Its Manager Sri Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2018WRIA/24031/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court applied for a writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order refusing prior approval for teacher recruitment despite sanctioned posts citing that the District Basic Education Officer had no authority to restrict recruitment below the Director's sanctioned strength, and the Court quashed the order directing fresh consideration within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.07.2018 passed by DBEO was quashed. The DBEO was directed to permit the Committee of Management to fill up the posts within six weeks.

C/M Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Etawah through… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24031 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Etawah Through Its Manager Sri Ashok Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶6

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order passed by District Basic Education Officer, Etawah (hereinafter to be referred as 'DBEO') dated 05.07.2018, whereby, while admitting that there is sanctioned strength of seven Assistant Teachers in the Institution, he has refused to grant prior approval for making selection and appointment on the two vacant positions on the ground that in view of the physical verification being done the sanctioned strength, as already granted, cannot be exceeded to. He has gone into some report of physical verification done in December 2017.

¶7

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the positions of Assistant Teachers have been duly sanctioned by the Director under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, it is none of the business of DBEO, an authority much below in rank to the Director, to refuse prior permission for holding selection on the positions duly sanctioned. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Committee of Management Dwivedi Mahadev Prasad Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ - A No. 36910 of 2016 wherein this Court has held that sanctioned positions of an Institution duly granted, cannot be reduced to by the DBEO or by any circular or a Government Order of any notification superseding the statutory provisions. Thereafter, concluding its judgment, the Court issued following direction vide paras 11 and 2 of the judgment:

¶8

"11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the document issued under the signatures of the District Basic Education Officer contained in Annexure-3 is not disputed in the counter affidavit, and sanction of seven posts of Assistant Teacher is not disputed, it would be appropriate to observe that prima facie existence of seven posts in the institution is reflected and in such circumstances, the authorities would

¶9

not be justified in restricting recruitment only to four posts of Assistant Teachers.

¶10

12. This petition accordingly stands disposed of with a direction upon the District Basic Education Officer concerned to examine existence of duly sanctioned posts existing in the institution in terms of rule 7(3), and thereafter proceed to permit the Committee of Management to fill up the posts in accordance with law. Such sanctioned posts would not be automatically reduced in view of the circular of Director dated 7.1.2015. The required consideration would be made by the officer concerned within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. "

¶11

Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate representing the respondent no. 3 does not dispute the above legal position and the controversy involved in the present case.

¶12

In view of the above, the order dated 05.07.2018 passed by DBEO can not be sustained and is hereby quashed. The DBEO is directed to take fresh decision in the matter considering the sanctioned strength as already granted to the Institution by Director of Education (Basic) after due verification of the said document and shall take a decision, positively within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in the light of observations made herein above and in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Dwivedi Mahadev Prasad Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya (supra) .

¶13

Writ petition stands allowed in terms of the observations and directions contained herein above.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.11.2018 IrfanUddin

C/M Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Etawah through Its Manager Sri Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Etawah through Its Manager Sri Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Sonal Pahariya Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dev Veer Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Mohammad Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khaderu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others