Allowed

Satyendra Kumar Srivastava and 03 Others v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2018WRIA/8498/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of financial approval for the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The Court quashed the impugned order for not considering the Full Bench decision in Santosh Kumar Singh regarding vacant posts and remitted the matter to the District Inspector of Schools.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and writ petition allowed. Matter remitted to authority for reconsideration within two months.

Satyendra Kumar Srivastava and 03 Others… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8498 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Srivastava And 03 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girdhar Prasad Tripathi,Heramb Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Petitioners are before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 06.02.2018 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur whereby the claim of petitioners for financial approval under 16-E (11) has been turned down.

¶7

It is contended that seven posts of Assistant Teachers fell vacant due to the retirement/promotion of Teachers. The Committee of Management has sent the requisition to the appropriate authority on 09.08.2014 for regular selection. It has also been contended that at no point of time any regular selected candidate has ever been made available to the Institution in question by the U.P. Secondary Education Board and even the said situation still prevails in the Institution.

¶8

The entire claim has been set up before this Court on the basis of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 215 (7) ADJ 178 (FB) and as such, it has been claimed that the Committee of Management has made advertisement in two widely circulated newspapers 'Dainik Jagran' and 'Amar Ujala' for filling up the vacancy and has undertaken the recruitment for appointment on the aforesaid vacant posts of Assistant Teacher.

¶9

Record in question reflects that petitioners had been before this Court by preferring Writ Petition no.61038/2016 (Sri Satyendra Kumar Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others) . The aforesaid petition has been filed for a direction commanding

¶10

the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, to grant financial approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teachers in Gandhi Inter College, Dhotari Ghazipur within stipulated period and the same was disposed of on 22.12.2016 with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur to consider the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law and keeping in mind the view laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh (supra).

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop, submits that once this Court has by order dated 22.12.2016 has asked the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur to decide the claim set up by the petitioners in the light of Santosh Kumar Singh (supra), then it was incumbent upon him to have a glance of the aforesaid judgement but without considering the same, the present order impugned has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners for financial approval.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner further informed to the Court that even for the subsequent academic session, the relevant papers have already been sent for financial approval under Section 16-E-11 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 but the same has not been approved till date. He has also submitted that so far as the claim for arrears and salary is concerned, the same had to be seen in the light of the judgement passed in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) and as such request has been made that the matter is liable to be remitted back to the authority concerned to revisit and pass appropriate order in the light of the judgement of Full Bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra).

¶13

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has not disputed the factual as well as legal aspect of the matter.

¶14

This Court has the occasion to peruse the record in question and finds that once in the year 2014 seven posts of Assistant Teachers have fallen vacant and the same has been sent to the U.P. Secondary Education Board for regular selection but the same has not been ensured and the situation still remains the same and in such a situation, the Management has taken recourse under Regulation 16-E-11 of the Act 1921,

¶15

then the said action cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law. Even in the year 2016, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of Writ Petition no.61038 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 22.1.2016 has asked the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur to consider the grievance of the petitioners keeping in mind the view laid down by the Full Bench of this court in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) and thereafter without considering the view taken in the said judgement, in most arbitrary manner, the order impugned has been passed and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶16

In view present facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned cannot sustain and the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed . The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to revisit the claim of the petitioner taking into consideration the prevailing situation as well as the fresh resolution passed by the management and keeping in mind the view taken by this Court in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.3.2018 A. Pandey

Satyendra Kumar Srivastava and 03 Others v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Kumar Srivastava and 03 Others v. State of U.P. and 03 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

Abhilakh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Jaisal and 2 Othres Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Harish Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajveer Singh Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of Up and 2 Others

C/M, Vivkananad Intermediate College Naraini Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others