Disposed

Priyanka Rai and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2022WRIA/15379/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought mandatory direction to pay full salary to Assistant Teachers appointed under Section 16-E(11). The High Court distinguished the case on grounds of prior Supreme Court judgment and clarified that rights depend on the cut-off date or examination qualification. The petition was disposed of without granting immediate salary.

What did the court decide?

No immediate salary order; matter remitted to competent authority to verify initial appointment legality under Section 16-E(11).

Priyanka Rai and Another Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15379 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Priyanka Rai And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

Presently, the petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondent authorities to pay full salary to the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) consequent to their appointment, on that post, at Jai Prakash Inter College, District Ballia.

¶7

In the above regard, it has been submitted, a substantive vacancy had arisen at that institution. On the request of the management of that institution, respondent no.4/District Inspector of Schools, Ballia vide his order dated 15.12.2017 granted permission to the Committee of Management for appointment under Section 16-E(11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. According to the petitioners, selection was carried out in accordance with law. Consequently, the petitioners were issued appointment letters dated 26.03.2018. They have been continuously working on such post since then. However, the matter of financial approval to the appointment thus granted to the petitioners is pending before the DIOS Ballia. Hence, the petition.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires, in Sanjay Singh vs State of U.P. & Ors., Writ Petition No. 3348 (S/S) of 2012 along with connected matters, vide order dated 26.08.2020, the Supreme

¶9

Court passed the following order:

¶10

"11. On having examined the issue, we feel it will be appropriate to direct that the teachers/lecturers who are employed at present the TGTs and lecturers would continue to be so employed till the aforesaid process is completed and to the extent the financial benefits are given by the State Government to the institutions, against appointments made in compliance with Section 16-E (sub- section 11) of the Act, the same will also be given to provide succour to the TGT/lecturers.

¶11

12. We end with the hope that we will never be faced with the aforesaid situation again and the State Government and the Commission will also make every endeavour to ensure that the order is complied in its true intent and spirit and specially the aspect of holding examinations for the future taking into consideration all and future vacancies reported as per rules is followed in times to come. We need not emphasize that education in a very important role performed by a State apart from the area of medical assistance to citizens and thus it is necessary that the full benefit is extended to the students which can only take place if the full strength of teachers is available at the requisite time. This in turn requires compliance with the aforesaid directions for the future.

¶12

13. Since there is always hope, we hope for a better future.

¶13

14. The aforesaid exercise by the Commission in consultation with the State Government should be completed well in time to ensure that at least in the session commencing in July, 2021 all teachers up to date are in place.

¶14

15. All the appeals and special leave petitions are disposed of in terms aforesaid.

¶15

16. All pending applications also stand disposed of."

¶16

It is undisputed between the parties, such examination was conducted by the State authorities in the year 2020-21 and its result was declared on 31.10.2021.

¶17

It is not clear whether the petitioners had applied for that examination and further it is not clear whether they had qualified that examination. The fact, the petitioners are pursuing the present petition suggests, such qualification has not been earned.

¶18

In any case, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh (supra), the right if any now being claimed by the petitioners has to remain confined, in the first place, to the cut-off date prescribed by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board for the purpose of filling up of forms to appear in the examination. If the petitioners did not submit the application to appear in that examination, their rights as claimed would end with that cut-off date. If they appeared in

¶19

the examination, only then, in that event, their rights may be determined by the result of that selection process. To clarify, in case, the petitioners appeared in that examination and qualified the same, they may claim continuity. However, if they failed to qualify, their rights would come to an end on declaration of that result.

¶20

With these stipulations, the matter is directed to be dealt with by respondent no.4/District Inspector of Schools, Ballia who may examine whether the initial appointment of the petitioners is in accordance with law. If the finding is recorded in favour of the petitioners on that issue, then further orders may be passed with respect to the payment of salary and duration of which it may be paid in terms of the observations made above.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation, present petition stands disposed of .

¶22

Order Date :- 9.12.2022 Prakhar

¶23

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.12 16:55:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priyanka Rai and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Rai and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupak kumar jain Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs Directorate of School Education and 4 Others

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and 14 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Anju and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Manorma Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others