Disposed

Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2019WRIA/822/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding delay in appointment and salary payment for a Clerk post in an aided school, the High Court, based on a detailed representation, directed the Assistant Director of Education to pass orders within three weeks and the District Basic Education Officer to take a final decision within one month thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Assistant Director of Education to pass orders within three weeks and the District Basic Education Officer to take a final decision within one month thereafter.

Sanjay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 822 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S.Yadav,J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard Sri J.P. Singh, along with Sri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and Sri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel put his appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred present writ petition with the following relief:-

¶8

(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kushinagar to examine the papers submitted before him on 29.07.2016 (filed as Annexure No.18 to this petition) qua petitioner's selection and to pass necessary order for financial approval within the time to be specified by the Hon'ble Court;

¶9

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents (particularly Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Khsuhinagar) to ensure that the petitioner is paid his monthly salaries as and when it falls due including the arrears of salaries from the date of his joining as Clerk in the School within the time to be specified by the Hon'ble Court.

¶10

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in District Kushinagar, there is a institution namely Saraswati Laghu Madhyamic Vidhyalay, Taruvanva (Kushinagar) which is a recognized and aided junior High School. The institution in question is run and controlled by the provisions contained in U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules 1984 and the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978.

¶11

¶12

One permanent clerk namely Shambhu Sharan Mishra was working in the Institution died and in order to fill up the aforesaid post, a resolution was passed by the Committee of Management of the Institution on 17.05.2015 to fill up the said post. In this regard, papers were forwarded by the Institution to the Office of the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar on 21.05.2015. Subsequently vide letter dated 13.6.2015, permission was granted to the institution to advertise the post of clerk in two news papers. It is further contended that in terms of the permission granted by the District Basic Education Officer Kushinagar, advertisement was made in Rashtriya Sahara, Hindi Danik on 25.06.2015. Due to unavoidable reasons, the selections were not conducted on the date fixed and thereafter fresh notification was made in the News papers and selections were held on 29.07.2016. After the selections were made, the Manager of the Institution forwarded papers to the District Basic Education Officer Kushinagar along with necessary papers and documents to grant of financial approval. In the meanwhile, one Sandipan Singh approached this Court by filing Writ A No.36358 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of on 05.08.2016, the orders passed in Writ A No.36358 of 2016 is quoted below :-

¶13

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3; and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh for the respondent no.4.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that a post of clerk was advertised by the Manager of an Institution named Saraswati Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Tharunhwa, Post Office Laxmipur Mishra Fazilnagar, District Kushinagar. According to the advertisement, application by eligible candidates was required to be submitted by 27.03.2016 and thereafter 29.03.2016 was the date fixed for interview. It is the case of the petitioner that on 29.03.2016 the interview did not take place because there were certain objections pertaining to the selection process and thereafter, even though, the petitioner was one of the applicant for the post, without information to the petitioner, on 19.07.2016, interviews were held to secure selection of a favourite candidate. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the date of interview was not notified afresh and it was not held on the date which was previously advertised, the applicants who had applied for the said post were deprived from participating in the selection process thereby vitiating the entire selection. It has been submitted that in respect of the aforesaid selection a complaint has been made by the petitioner to various authorities including the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kushinagar.

¶15

Considering the nature of the allegations made, with the consent of the learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the fourth respondent (District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar), without expressing any

¶16

¶17

opinion on merits of claim, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the fourth respondent (District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar), who shall examine the record and pass appropriate order dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner before according approval to the selection of any selected candidate. It is made clear that before taking any decision on the objections raised by the petitioner, the fourth respondent (District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar) will provide opportunity of hearing to the affected parties including the Committee of Management of the Institution concerned. “

¶18

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that although vide letter dated 16.12.2016, the date for hearing was fixed on 27.12.2016 and also on the said date, the manager of the Institution in question is duly present in the office of the District Basic Education Officer Kushinagar but till date no final decision has been taken by the aforesaid respondents regarding grant of approval in the matter of selection. It appears that in the meanwhile, an Assistant Teacher namely Sita Ram was working in the Institution in question died on 16.12.2017 and thereafter, his son namely Mr. Abhishek Rao approached the Educational Authorities including the District Basic Education Officer Kushinagar for his appointment on the post of clerk on compassionate ground. In this view of the matter, a letter dated 1.11.2018 was written by the third respondent to the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur/second respondent asking the instructions in the matter. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri J.P. Singh that till date no reply whatsoever has been given by the second respondent namely Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur in response to the letter dated 1.11.2018 sent by the respondent No.3. It is further contended that on account of noncommunication, the petitioner is suffering irreparable loss. It is further contended that the petitioners is working in the Institution in question from last several months but he is not getting his salary.

¶19

In this background of the matter and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to communicate a copy of the order passed by this Court today before the second respondent/ Assistant Director

¶20

¶21

of Education (Basic), Gorakpur Region Gorakhpur along with a copy of representation as well as a copy of the letter dated 1.11.2018 which is appended as Annexure No.25 to the writ petition within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate the same to the District Basic Education Officer Kushinagar/respondent No.3. Thereafter the District Basic Education Officer Kushinagar is directed to take decision in the matter within a period of one month thereafter.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 21.1.2019 saqlain

Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M of Ramanuj Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi, and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hemant Prakash and 18 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sangeeta Pal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kamal Kant Pal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sachidanand Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Sriram Lakhan Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others