Allowed

C/M Ajeet Nath Jain Inter College, Sherpur Lohara, and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2018WRIA/7957/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court quashed an order refusing to approve the appointment of an Assistant Teacher by a minority college. Holding that prior approval is not mandated for selection under Section 16 FF, the Court directed the authorities to reconsider the merits and pass a final order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the appointment was quashed. The petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the DIOS to pass a final order within two months.

C/M Ajeet Nath Jain Inter College, Sherpur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7957 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Ajeet Nath Jain Inter College, Sherpur Lohara, And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Mishra,Rahul Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶2

Heard Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents.

¶3

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 9.3.2018 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat, whereby the selection done on the post of Assistant Teacher has been disapproved. It is further prayed to issue a direction to the respondents to make payment of salary to the selected candidate along with arrears.

¶4

This much is reflected from the record that the matter relates to 'Sri Ajeet Nath Jain Inter College, Sherpur Lohara, District Bhatpat" (in short "the institution"), which was recognized under the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The institution is a minority institution and Payment of Salaries Act is also applicable upon the institution. It is contended that on account of retirement of one Assistant Teacher, the vacancy had occurred on the said post and as such on 30.4.2017 the Committee of Management passed resolution for filling up the said vacancies and the relevant papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) on 4.5.2017 seeking permission to fill up the vacancies, even though there was no requirement to send relevant papers for any approval for making advertisement in this regard. But due to abandon precaution the management has proceeded to send the relevant papers to the DIOS for approval. It is contended that when no permission was granted and the institution being a minority institution the Committee of Management has the power to make appointment on the said posts, the vacancies were advertised in two newspapers namely 'Shah times' (Hindi) and 'Times of India' (English). In response thereof various incumbents have applied. Finally selection committee was constituted in response to the aforesaid advertisement. Consequently, the selection was made on the post of Assistant Teacher (Social Science) and relevant papers were forwarded for approval. Upon receiving the papers in respect of the selection in question, the DIOS has passed the order dated 9.3.2016, whereby he has refused to accord approval to the appointment made by the petitioner precisely on the ground that the management has proceeded to make the selection

¶5

without any formal approval from the DIOS and as such the same cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

¶6

In this backdrop, Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the institution, which is a minority institution has proceeded strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under the Intermediate Education Act and Regulations framed thereunder. It is submitted that under Section 16 FF-4 of the Act the DIOS can refuse to accord approval only on the ground when the candidate is not having the requisite qualification prescribed and is otherwise ineligible. But in the present matter in most arbitrary manner the approval has not been accorded only on the ground that previous approval has not been sought for and the Management has proceeded to make the selection and as such no approval can be made in the matter. He submits that entire action is in teeth of statutory provisions of Section 16 FF-4 of the Act and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.

¶7

So far as facts and law are concerned, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has not opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that definitely in the case of minority institution the DIOS has to act as per the provisions contained under Section 16 FF of the Act.

¶8

The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that admittedly the institution in question is minority institution and against the vacancy of Assistant Teacher, the Management has proceeded to advertise the same in two daily newspapers. Thereafter, selection committee was constituted strictly as per the relevant provisions under the Act and Regulations. Consequently selection has been made and relevant papers were transmitted to the DIOS for approval. In this backdrop, the Court has also proceeded to examine the relevant provisions contained under Section 16 FF, which for ready reference is reproduced as under:-

¶9

"[16FF. Minority savings as to minority institutions. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management : Provided 'hat one of the members of the Selection Committee shall, -

¶10

(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution, be an expert selected by the Committee of Management from a panel of experts prepared by the Director;

¶11

(b) in the case of appointment of a teacher, be the Head of the Institution

¶12

concerned.

¶13

(2) The procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless, -

¶14

(a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education; and

¶15

(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.

¶16

(4) The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible.

¶17

(5) Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be. does not approve of a candidate selected under this section, the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the date of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of a teacher.

¶18

(6) Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub-section (5) shall be final.]"

¶19

From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, this much is clearly reflected that so far as the prior approval is concerned, there is no provision contained thereunder that before proceeding for the selection in the minority institution any such permission is required to be taken but definitely after selection the entire papers are to be sent to the DIOS for formal approval, if the institution is under grant-in-aid list. At that juncture the DIOS has every right to look into the credentials as well as the qualifications of the incumbents, whose papers have been submitted by the management for approval.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the DIOS has proceeded beyond his jurisdiction and passed the order impugned, which cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, the order impugned cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the DIOS concerned to consider the relevant papers, which have been submitted by the management strictly in accordance with law and pass final order in this regard within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 16.3.2018 RKP

C/M Ajeet Nath Jain Inter College, Sherpur Lohara, and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Ajeet Nath Jain Inter College, Sherpur Lohara, and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malti Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Mishra Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pancham Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others