Allowed

C/M Sri Sukhdevi Balika Ucchhatar Madhyamik Vidhayala Mandir and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2021WRIA/3097/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed. Court quashed orders refusing salary approval to a selected Class-III candidate in a private aided school. Authorities directed to grant financial sanction based on existing vacancies without delay, citing settled law that statutory recruitment cannot be stayed pending new rules.

What did the court decide?

Grant of financial approval for selected candidate; release of arrears and future salary; 6% simple interest on arrears upon failure.

C/M Sri Sukhdevi Balika Ucchhatar Madhyamik… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3097 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Sri Sukhdevi Balika Ucchhatar Madhyamik Vidhayala Mandir And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Sharma,Kapil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the Staterespondent.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management assailing the impugned order dated 24th February, 2020, passed by the third respondent- Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur/Regional Level Committee, refusing the grant approval for payment of salary to the Class-III selected candidate, in view of Government Order dated 30th October, 2019 and consequential order dated 04th November, 2019.

¶7

The Court expressed its displeasure as the impugned order came to be passed resting upon the above noted Government Orders, which came to be quashed by this Court in earlier proceedings. Accordingly, the Court on 15.07.2019 passed the following order:

¶8

"This petition is by the recognized Intermediate Institution against an order passed by the Regional Level Committee declining grant of financial approval to the appointment made on a Class-III post in the institution.

¶9

This Court on the previous occasion passed following orders:-

¶10

"The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Regional Level Committee refusing payment of salary to the petitioner on the ground that vide government orders dated 30.10.2019 and 04.11.2019 directions

¶11

were issued to formulate transparent process of selection on posts vacant in aided educational institutions and therefore, till the said process is evolved, financial approval cannot be granted to the persons selected for appointment by the Institution.

¶12

It has been stated that the issue arising in the present writ petition is identical to the issues raised in Writ-A No. 7581 of 2020 and Writ-A No. 8359 of 2020 wherein similar orders have been set aside and the concerned authorities were directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶13

Learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted ten days time to seek instructions.

¶14

Put up again as fresh on 08.03.2021."

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which the order impugned has been passed on the basis of two Government Orders dated 30.10.2019 and 4.11.2019.

¶16

The two Government Orders relied upon for rejecting the petitioner's claim have been a subject matter of examination in several previous writ petitions. By virtue of these Government Orders a decision has been taken to evolve a more transparent process of recruitment and to stay all recruitments till then. This Court in Writ Petition No.6406 of 2020 observed as under on 21.9.2020:-

¶17

"Merely because a more transparent process is likely to be evolved by the State in future cannot be a ground to keep the post vacant in such educational institutions. It goes without saying that as and when a more transparent process is evolved and the statutes are accordingly amended the prospective recruitment would be made as per it. However, the existing vacancies will have to be filled as per the procedure prescribed in the Act and regulations. State cannot withhold the process of appointment in such institutions as it would go contrary to the cause of education itself.

¶18

In such view of the matter, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia dated 11.6.2020 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Since the Director has already granted permission vide his order dated 24.5.2019, the Inspector shall pass consequential orders within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order.

¶19

Writ petition stands allowed.

¶20

¶21

The concerned authority/official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order."

¶22

This order has been followed in a series of writ petitions including Writ Petition Nos.7981 of 2020 and 8359 of 2020. The position has been reiterated by a recent order passed on 14.6.2021 in Writ Petition No.351 of 2021 (C/M Shri Bihari Ji Inter College and another Vs. State of U.P. and others). Relevant portion of the order dated 14.6.2021 reads as under:-

¶23

"Since the statutory regulations otherwise regulate the grant of appointment and the procedure as per law has already been followed before making the appointments in question, the authorities cannot be permitted to deny grant of sanction to the appointment made by the petitioner institution only for the reasons set out in the Government Order dated 30.10.2019. In such circumstances this petition succeeds and is allowed. Orders impugned dated 27.01.2020 and 30.10.2019 are quashed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider grant of financial sanction to the appointments made by the petitioner institution, by a reasoned order, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The appointments would be tested with reference to the provisions applicable in law on the date of making of the appointment."

¶24

Notwithstanding the above proposition of law on the point the authorities continue to pass orders after orders in derogation of the law settled by this Court. This Court finds substance in the contention advanced on behalf of petitioner that unless half a dozen writ petitions are filed the authorities do not allow any appointment to be made in the educational institutions concerned.

¶25

Instructions received from the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah notice the facts relating to the present case that a vacancy arose in the petitioner institution on the post of Assistant Clerk on 31.7.2018, but despite request made by the institution no permission was granted to fill it up. The committee of management filed Writ Petition No.26601 of 2018, which was disposed of on 14.12.2018. This order was not complied with and thereafter a Contempt Petition No.3232 of 2019 was filed. It is after the filing of contempt petition and order passed therein that the Director on 23.5.2019 granted permission to fill up the post. The vacancy was

¶26

¶27

advertised in widely circulated newspapers and papers were submitted but no orders were passed in respect of grant of financial approval to the appointment made. Third round of litigation consequently commenced with filing of Writ Petition No.17556 of 2019. A direction was issued for consideration of pending claim for grant of financial approval. It is thereafter that the order impugned has been passed by the Regional Level Committee declining approval on the basis of the Government Orders dated 4.11.2019 and 30.10.2019. The present writ petition is thus filed challenging the order of Regional Level Committee. Time was allowed to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. The District Inspector of Schools, Etawah in his instructions states that in light of the Government Orders the impugned decision has been taken by the Regional Level Committee.

¶28

This Court is at a loss to understand as to how the authorities continue to pass orders in defiance of the law settled by this Court. This merely results in uncalled for litigation and harassment to the employees, who have otherwise been selected by following the due process of law. Ultimately the cause of education suffers. The society which is denied of good education can hardly flourish.

¶29

In light of the above observations it would be appropriate to call upon the Additional Chief Secretary of the department concerned to examine the issue and to issue necessary guidelines to the concerned officials to act in accordance with law and not to deny grant of permission/approval only because a more transparent process of recruitment is proposed to be evolved. It is always open for the State to evolve a more transparent recruitment process and to implement it prospectively. So long as it is not done, the existing vacancies will have to be filled as per the statutory rules, which exists on date. There cannot be any confusion on this count. The concerned Additional Chief Secretary shall file his personal affidavit by the next date fixed.

¶30

Post as fresh, once again, on 4.8.2021 before the appropriate Court."

¶31

Pursuant thereof, the Additional Chief Secretary has filed her personal affidavit placing on record an order/communication dated 31st August, 2021, addressed to the Director of Education

¶32

¶33

(Secondary), Uttar Pradesh, wherein, it has been categorically stated that the order should be passed by the authorities on merit and not based on the Government Orders which has been quashed by this Court.

¶34

5. The relevant portion of the communication is extracted:

¶35

mijksDr fuLrkj.k ls izrhr gksrk gS fd vki }kjk izdj.k dk ijh{k.k xq.k&nks"k ij u djds ek= bl vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS fd ’kklu }kjk ikjn’khZ ,oa ekudhd`r izfdz;k fu/kkZfjr gksus rd v’kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr 26 ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa fyfidksa dh fu;qfDr LFkfxr dh x;h gSA blds vfrfjDr vki }kjk izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djrs gq, ’kklukns’k la[;k&100@15&05&2021&1601¼87½@2020] fnukad 19 tuojh 2021 dk mYys[k fd;k x;k] tcfd mDr i= eq[; LFkk;h vf/koDrk] ek0 mPp U;k;y;] bykgkckn dks iszf"kr fd;s tkus okyk bULVªD’ku Fkk u fd dksbZ ’kklukns’kA

¶36

vr% izdj.k dks xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkfjr u djds ek= mDr vk/kkj ij fuLrkfjr fd;k x;k] tks fd vuqfpr gSA mDr gsrq vkidks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Hkfo"; esa fdlh Hkh izdj.k esa bl izdkj ds ljljh ijh{k.k dh iqujko`fRr u gksA mDr ds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki vius mu v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) fu;ekuqlkj n.MkRed dk;Zokgh djuk lqfuf’pr djsa ftuds }kjk izdj.kksa dk fuLrkj.k izpfyr loZekU; foRrh; ,oa dkfeZd dh fu;qfDr lEcU/kh fu;eksa rFkk rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa lE;d~ ijh{k.k xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fu"i{k ,oa ikjn’khZ rjhds ls u djrs gq, ljljh rkSj ij fuLrkj.k ek= ;g mYYks[k djrs gq, fd;k x;k gS fd ’kklu }kjk 26 v’kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo| ky;ksa esa fyfidksa dh fu;qfDr dks LFkfxr fd;k x;k gSA

¶37

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 24th February, 2020, passed by the third respondent- Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur/Regional Level Committee is set aside and quashed. The fourth respondent- District Inspector of Schools, Etawah shall grant financial approval of the selected candidate on Class-III post within two weeks from the date of filing a copy of this order, thereafter, the arrears of salary and salary on month to month basis

¶38

¶39

shall be released within the next three weeks, thereafter. Failing which petitioner shall be entitled to interest from the due date @ 6% simple interest to be borne by the fourth respondent- District Inspector of Schools, Etawah.

¶40

Order Date :- 21.9.2021 Rameez

¶41

C/M Sri Sukhdevi Balika Ucchhatar Madhyamik Vidhayala Mandir and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Sri Sukhdevi Balika Ucchhatar Madhyamik Vidhayala Mandir and Another v. State of U P and 3 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

Dhruv Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharvendra Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Chhunnu Lal Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Dr. Ashutosh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others