Allowed

Shrikant Ram and Others v. Director of Education Basic Allahabad and Others

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2022WRIA/10202/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the termination of petitioners' services as Assistant Teachers following an order declaring their appointments invalid. The Court held that non-production of records did not render the appointments incorrect and allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders. Disposition: Allowed, with appointment declared valid.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 2.2.2000 by Director of Education and consequential order dated 10.2.2000 by Committee of Management set aside; petitioners entitled to consequential benefits.

Shrikant Ram and Others Vs Director of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10202 of 2000

¶3

Petitioner :- Shrikant Ram And Others Respondent :- Director Of Education Basic Allahabad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- ,A.K. Pandey,Amit Saxena,R.D. Singh,R.G. Padia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.K.Mishra,Samir Garg

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

The petitioners are Assistant Teachers working in the college of Respondent no. 7. By means of the impugned order dated 2.2.2000 passed by the Director of Education (Basic), Respondent no.1, along with several other teachers, the case of the petitioners was also considered and it has been held that the appointment of the petitioners was not validly made. Pursuant to that, the consequential order dated 10.2.2000 has been passed by the Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution, Respondent no.7, whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated. Challenging the aforesaid orders this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶6

I have heard Sri Saurabh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Sri Raghvendra Saran Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri V.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.7.

¶7

The brief facts of this case are that Junior High school Sultanpur, Ballia is a duly recognized High School and is included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. After due permission having been given by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, certain posts of Assistant Teachers were advertised. After following the procedure the petitioners were selected for such appointment. On 08.05.1987 and 27.06.1987, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia accorded approval to the selection of the petitioners for appointment as Assistant Teacher and pursuant thereto an appointment letter was issued to the petitioners and they joined their services in 1987. Thereafter, in 1997 one Ranjeet Bahadur Rai, who was the then Manager of the institution, challenged the order of appointment of the petitioners by filing writ petition no. 19433 of 1977 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.7.1997 with the direction that unless the services of the petitioner therein (Ajai Kumar Rai) were terminated in accordance with law, he shall be entitled to payment of his salary. Since in October 1998, the

¶8

payment of salary to the entire staff of the institution was stopped, all the members of the staff of the institution filed writ petition no. 12889 of 1999, in which an interim order was passed on 30.3.1999 directing the respondents to pay salary to the entire staffs until further orders. However, since the salary was not paid to the staff members, Contempt petition no. 1479 of 1999 was filed against the educational authorities for non compliance of the interim order dated 30.3.1999. In the meantime, on 25.8.1999, the Deputy Director of Education passed an order holding certain employees to be entitled for payment of salary but the petitioners were held dis-entitled for such payment. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in writ petition no.39481 of 1999 in which an interim order was granted by this Court on 14.9.1999 directing payment of salary to the petitioners. The said interim order was challenged by the committee of management of the institution in Special Appeal no. 1079 of 1999. Although the interim order dated 14.9.1999 was set aside but the writ petition no. 39481 of 1999 itself was allowed by the Division Bench and the order dated 25.8.1999 was quashed and the Director of Education was given liberty to pass fresh order. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 2.2.2000 has been passed.

¶9

By means of an interim order dated 17.5.2000 the operation of the orders dated 2.2.2000 and 10.2.2000 had been stayed by this Court.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the initial orders dated 08.05.1987 and 27.06.1987 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia whereby approval was granted to the selection and appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers has neither been withdrawn nor quashed by any authority or Court. The Director of Education in its order has merely considered the fact that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari did not produce the record pertaining to the selection proceedings and as such the entire selection process was doubtful. However, nothing has been said in the impugned order with regard to the order granting approval to the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.

¶11

Merely because certain documents were not produced by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or invalid. The specific case of the petitioners are that their appointments were made after the vacancy was notified to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and permission was granted to fill up the vacancy, after adopting the selection process. It is the categorical case of the petitioners that after selection, their appointments were duly approved by the

¶12

respondents. In the absence of any of the respondents having filed the counter affidavit, the averments made in the writ petition would be taken to be correct. Even in the impugned order it has not been said that the order of approval was either forged or fabricated. As such, merely on surmises, the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioners cannot be set aside.

¶13

For the foregoing reasons, in my view, the order passed by the Director of Education as well as the consequential order passed by the committee of management deserve to be set aside.

¶14

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.

¶15

The order dated 2.2.2000 passed by the Director of Education, Respondent no.1, in so far as it relates to the petitioners, as well as the consequential order dated 10.2.2000 passed by Respondent no.7 are set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶16

No order as to cost.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.4.2022 Madhurima

¶18

Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.05.10 12:29:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shrikant Ram and Others v. Director of Education Basic Allahabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Ram and Others v. Director of Education Basic Allahabad and 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

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dharam Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Dr Ambedkar Shiksha Niketan Junior High School Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surendra Dev Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gopeshwar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others