Dismissed

Swami Nath Pathak v. the Distt Inspector of Schools Varanasi and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2019WRIA/12590/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Sanskrit lecturer challenged the refusal of promotion to a post filled in 2009. The single-judge bench held there was no merit in the petition regarding the 50% promotion quota completion and dismissal of the claim. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition failing in merit was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Swami Nath Pathak Vs the Distt Inspector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12590 of 2011

¶3

Petitioner :- Swami Nath Pathak Respondent :- The Distt Inspector Of Schools Varanasi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyam Sunder, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The petitioner has sought the relief that he may be promoted to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit on the vacancy which arose on the retirement of Achyutanand Pandey. The committee of management has sent a proposal to fill up that post under promotion quota. The District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi, rejected that proposal by his order dated 12.2.1998 on the ground that out of total eight sanctioned posts in Lecturer Grade, four posts are already filled up under promotion quota and thus, 50% promotion quota is complete. Therefore, he held that the promotion cannot be made on the said post.

¶7

Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10040 of 1998 (Swami Nath Pathak v. Joint Director of Eduction and others) in which the petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit dated 24.8.2006 and submitted that in view of the subsequent event, the matter needs reconsideration by the Committee of Management. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the writ petition by the aforesaid order dated 5.9.2008 as under :

¶8

" Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by a supplementary affidavit dated 24.8.2006 the petitioner has brought on record the subsequent events which have happened after filing of this writ petition whereby promotion to the the post of Lecture in Sanskrit in Adarsh Rastriya Vidyalay Inter College, Cholapur, Varanasi can be made. According to him, the said events should be considered by the Committee of Management as also District Inspector of Schools for the purpose of granting promotion to the petitioner.

¶9

Since the subsequent developments have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition hence this writ petition is disposed of requiring the respondent no.3 Committee of Management to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of lecture in Sanskrit if such post is available to be filled by promotion and in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled the proposal should be sent to the DIOS for his approval.

¶10

Insofar as the impugned order is concerned since the rejection has been made on the ground that 50% promotion quota has already been filled and the contention of the petitioner regarding his entitlement to promotion is being disputed and other person likely to be affected are made party in this petition no interference is required in the impugned order.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶12

No order is passed as to costs."

¶13

Perusal of the aforesaid order of the writ Court shows that this Court has not interfered with the order of the District Inspector of Schools,Varanasi dated 12.2.1998 and specifically observed that since the rejection has been made on the ground that 50% promotion quota has already been filled and the contention of the petitioner regarding his entitlement of the promotion is being disputed and other persons likely to be affected are made party in this writ petition, no interference is required in the impugned order.

¶14

Thereafter, on proposal of the committee of management one Sri Basant Lal, assistant teacher was promoted to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit on account of the vacancy created by retirement of one Sri Ram Adhar, Lecturer in History on 30.6.2008 and accordingly the District Inspector of schools issued an order dated 5.6.2009 in terms of the order of the Joint Director of Eduction dated 28.5.2009 and the decision of the Divisional Level Committee.

¶15

In paragraph Nos. 4,7,8, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit dated 6.7.2011 filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, it has been stated that in the absence of post of Lecturer under 50% promotion quota of assistant teacher in L.T. Grade, no financial sanction could be accorded to the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. It has also been stated that eight Lecturers are being paid salary under the Payment of Salary Act, 1971, against the total sanctioned posts of eight Lecturer in the institution in question. Since, there is no vacant post of Lecturer under the promotion quota, therefore, the respondents have not committed any error of law to refuse to accord sanction for promotion of the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already retired on 30.6.2013.

¶17

For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.12.2019 Ak/

Swami Nath Pathak v. the Distt Inspector of Schools Varanasi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Nath Pathak v. the Distt Inspector of Schools Varanasi and Another

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

Suresh Chand Singhal and Another Vs Mohd. Mustakeem and Another

Heera Lal Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajendra Mandal Vs Collector and Others

Sharda Devi Vs Udai Pratap Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari

Surendra Nath Pathak Vs Dios and Another

Nawab Kazim Ali Khan Vs Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan