Dismissed

C/M Ramakant Sewa Sansthan Kanya Vidyalaya, Varanasi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2018WRIA/25653/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge dismissed a writ petition filed by a private institution challenging the District Basic Education Officer's order placing an employee on compassionate grounds. The court held that once satisfied with minimum eligibility, rights under rules and executive directions cannot be denied, and management must not obstruct such appointments. Petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

C/M Ramakant Sewa Sansthan Kanya… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25653 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- C/M Ramakant Sewa Sansthan Kanya Vidyalaya, Varanasi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aishwarya Kumar Singh,Nisheeth Yadav,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 5 in Court and the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶8

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter to be referred as 'DBEO') , Varanasi, whereby one Brijesh Gopal Khalifa respondent no. 4 has been directed to be adjusted against the existing vacancy in the petitioner's Institution.

¶9

Grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the order passed by Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 529 of 2016, the 4th respondent, who is now sought to be adjusted under the impugned order, was to be considered first against the existing vacancy in the Institution namely Sri Shiv Karan Singh Gautam Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Varanasi who was respondent no. 5 in the said special appeal. The Division Bench in the said case in Special Appeal No. 529 of 2016 had passed the following directions in the conclusive paragraph:

¶10

"The Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order taking

¶11

¶12

decision regarding placement of fourth respondent namely Shri Brijesh Gopal Khalifa on compassionate ground against the vacant post in the concerned Institutions in the following order of preference:-.

¶13

(1) Firstly, the Institution in which the deceased employee was working.

¶14

(2) Then the Institution of the respondent No.5 namely Shri Shiv Karan Singh Gautam Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya.

¶15

(3) And lastly, the Institution of the petitioner namely Ramakant Seva Sansthan Madhyamik Kanya Vidyalaya.

¶16

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of."

¶17

It is contended that in compliance of the said order, the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi passed the order on 04.11.2016 that the 4th respondent shall be adjusted in the Institution namely Ramakant Seva Sansthan Kanya Vidyalaya, Ramakant Nagar, Varanasi. However, the said institution did not permit the applicant to join and resultantly the 4th respondent filed another writ petition bearing Writ - A No. 54362 of 2017 in which the DBEO Varanasi was directed to pass fresh order within six weeks. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the DBEO finally passed an order directing adjustment of 4th respondent in the Institution of 5th respondent against the existing vacancy vide order dated 13.03.2018. The 5th respondent consequently filed writ petition bearing no. 8918 of 2018 setting aside the order passed by the DBEO and remitted the matter to the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) to consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 529 of 2016. In compliance of the order of this Court passed in Writ - A No. 8918 of 2018 dated 29.03.2018, the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi vide order dated

¶18

¶19

29.08.2018 passed a detailed order after hearing all the concerned parties directing adjustment of the 4th respondent either in the Institution namely Sri Shiv Karan Singh Gautam Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhadaini, Varanasi or in the petitioner's institution against the vacant situation of Class-III.

¶20

Against the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 29.03.2018 passed in writ petition filed by 5th respondent, 4th respondent preferred Special Appeal (Defective) No. 275 of 2018 while entertaining the appeal the Division Bench initially issued an interim direction on 01.10.2018 which is reproduced hereunder:

¶21

"Learned counsel appearing on behalf of District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi submits that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 13.09.2018 the appellant has been permitted to continue at Sri Bhar Shiv Mangla Vidyalaya, Badi Gaibi, Varanasi and the issue with regard to payment of salary is under active consideration.

¶22

Having considered the statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi, we deem it appropriate to direct the District Basic Education Officer to pass appropriate order to appoint the appellant on compassionate grounds in accordance with rules with any institution except Sri Bhar Shiv Mangla Vidyalaya, Badi Gaibi, Varanasi within a period of two weeks from today and further to ensure the payment of salary within the period interregnum.

¶23

Let this appeal be listed on 29.10.2018 in additional cause list."

¶24

(Emphasis supplied)

¶25

In view of the interim direction issued by the Division Bench in Special Appeal (supra) , the DBEO directed for adjustment of the petitioner in the petitioner's Institution vide order dated 25.10.2018 and the petitioner was consequently issued appointment order and he joined. The Division Bench ultimately disposed of the appeal with following observations and directions:

¶26

¶27

"In the wake of the aforesaid fact, the conclusion drawn by us hereinabove that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment on 29th March, 2018 did not commit any error is reaffirmed. Since, according to the interim direction of this Court on 1st October, 2018, an appointment has already been offered to the appellant in the institution known as Ramakant Seva Sansthan (supra), we see no reason now to interfere with the impugned judgment for this additional fact as well. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 29th March, 2018. However, we make it clear that in the event the District Basic Education Officer fails to ensure the payment of the salary of the appellant, he will be clearly liable for contempt and even otherwise, the institution where the appellant has been appointed shall not create any obstruction as that would amount to violation of the order of the Division Bench of this Court referred to hereinabove.

¶28

The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶29

The appellant shall forthwith join the institution where she has been appointed. A photostat copy of the order of appointment has been handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant in the Court by Sri Nisheeth Yadav."

¶30

In the opinion of the Court, once the Division Bench has upheld the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 29.03.2018 and has acknowledged the appointment of the 4th respondent in the petitioner's institution under the order passed by the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) dated 29.09.2018 and directed for payment of salary, there lies hardly any scope for interference in the consequential order dated 25.10.2018 by the DBEO impugned in this writ petition.

¶31

It is however worth noticing that purpose for compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the family in distress and if such a person is not given proper adjustment and is denied payment of salary only on account of the fact that the management of the private institutions do not want adjustment and want to make fresh recruitment of their own choice, the very purpose of compassionate appointment gets defeated.

¶32

¶33

The rules for compassionate appointment already provide for relaxation in terms of certain essential, minimum eligibility requirement vide 11th amendment in the Dying in Harness Rules. It is further to be clarified that Committees of Management of the private institutions cannot deny adjustment of candidates seeking compassionate appointment as a matter of right. Very purpose for employment in an institution is to employ a person to carry out the work of the post for smooth function of the institution. One is required to employ an eligible and efficient person. In the entire writ petition no such ground is taken that in case 4th respondent is employed, the institution in any manner is going to suffer for disposal of work assigned to the seat of a clerk. In the appointment, whether direct or under compassionate appointment rules, if a person possesses minimum qualifications or is otherwise eligible as per relaxation provided under the rules, the appointment cannot be faulted with.

¶34

11. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶35

Order Date :- 12.12.2018 IrfanUddin

C/M Ramakant Sewa Sansthan Kanya Vidyalaya, Varanasi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C/M Ramakant Sewa Sansthan Kanya Vidyalaya, Varanasi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Kishore Awasthi and Others. Vs State of U.P. and Others

Bhagwan Das Rastogi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home U.P. Lkw. and Ors.

Smt. Seema Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Kamlesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Chhaya Vs State of U.P. and Another