Dismissed

C/M Indira Purva Madhyamic Vidyalaya and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2023WRIA/5210/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed two connected writ petitions challenging the appointment of two individuals as Assistant Teachers in a government-aided school. The petitioners argued the appointments were illegal and contrary to Rules 1978 due to lack of proper selection procedure. The Court found the selection process followed statutory rules and dismissed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were dismissed; the Court declined to interfere with the appointments.

C/M Indira Purva Madhyamic Vidyalaya and Another Vs… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126386

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5210 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- C/M Indira Purva Madhyamic Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saroj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Rai,Shriprakash Mishra,Sri Prakash Mishra

¶5

WITH

¶6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10060 of 2020

¶7

Petitioner :- Thakur Prasad Nishad And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Haidar Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,Shriprakash Mishra

¶8

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Sri Prakash Mishra and Sri Ramesh Rai, learned counsels for respondent nos. 7 and 8.

¶10

Both the writ petitions involve common questions of law and are being decided together with the consent of the parties. The facts of Writ -A No. 5210 of 2023 are being narrated for the adjudication of the case.

¶11

The writ petition, being Writ-A No. 5210 of 2023 has been filed assailing the appointments of the respondent nos. 7 and 8 with the prayer to direct the respondents to conduct an inquiry regarding the appointments of the respondent nos. 7 and 8 as Assistant Teachers, in the Institution and to cancel their illegal appointments and to recover the salary paid to the respondent nos. 7 and 8 from the state exchequer in accordance with law. Further prayer is to direct the respondents to conclude the pending enquiry instituted under the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, within the time fixed by the Court.

¶12

The, brief facts, of the case are that there is an institution in the name and style of Indira Purva Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Budhupur, Sarai Mohiuddinpur, District Jaunpur. The said institution imparts education upto class VIII. The said institution has been duly recognized and receiving grant-in-aid from the State Exchequer since December, 2006. The institution is governed by provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred as "Rules 1978").

¶13

The petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 who are the Manager of the Committee of Management and Head Master, respectively, has rushed to this Court assailing the appointment of respondent nos. 7 and 8 as Assistant Teacher in the institution being dehors the Rule 1978, regarding which they have made several complaints and on one such complaint, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide letter dated 27.05.2022 addressed to the Finance and Accountant Officer, Basic Shiksha, Jaunpur directed to initiate action regarding stoppage of salary of respondent no. 7 and 8 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition).

¶14

The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur, vide order dated 09.09.2022 has initiated three members Committee to inquire into the appointment of respondent nos. 7 and 8 pursuant to the complaint filed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, State of U.P.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent nos. 7 and 8 who are functioning as Assistant Teacher in the institution in question were not appointed, in accordance with law and are drawing salary from the state exchequer illegally and thus, the appointment being illegal is liable to be cancelled.

¶16

The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur has filed a counter affidavit along with the averment made in the writ petition. In paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Manager/Head Master of the Institution by its letter pursuant to the proposal dated 24.06.2018 by the Committee of Management for the selection of vacant two posts of Assistant Teacher in the School has sought permission for advertisement in pursuance of which, the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur, in pursuance of the guidelines provided in the letter dated 27.03.2018 of Director of Education (Basic) of U.P., Lucknow, gave permission for selection on vacant two posts of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 28.09.2018. Pursuant thereto, the Committee of Management got advertisement dated 10.12.2018 published in two daily newspaper "Swatantra Bharat" and "Tarun Mitra" inviting application for

¶17

recruitment for the post of Assistant Teacher in the Institution. The last date of submission of the application form was 27.12.2018. Pursuant to advertisement dated 10.12.2018, 16 application forms were received till the last date i.e. 27.12.2018. Thereafter, the Manger of the Institution vide letter dated 28.12.2018 requested for nomination of Supervisor. Pursuant thereto, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide its letter dated 02.01.2019, appointed Sri Jai Kumar Yadav, Block Education Officer, Headquarter, Jaunpur as Supervisor. Thereafter, on 05.01.2019 Selection Committee was constituted. The Selection Committee consisted of:-

¶18

Sri Balram Nishad, Manager School, Committee of Management,

¶19

Sri Bholaram, Head Master (Member, Selection Committee) and

¶20

Sri Jai Kumar Yadav, Block Education Officer, Headquarter (Member, Selection Committee).

¶21

The Selection Committee took the interview and prepared the merit list of three selected candidates in order of proforma.

¶22

Sri Ram Pujan (respondent no. 8) and Sri Varun Kumar Mishra (respondent no. 7) and Sri Indresh were placed at Sl. No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the list so prepared. Thereafter papers were forwarded to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur, who vide approval order dated 15.01.2019 approved the selection of respondent nos. 7 and 8 as Assistant Teachers in the Institution. Pursuant to which the Manager has issued the appointment letters dated 04.02.2019 in favour of respondent nos. 7 and 8, who have joined the institution on 18.02.2019 and are discharging their duties as Assistant Teachers in the institution.

¶23

Counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent nos. 7 and 8 annexing the advertisement dated 10.12.2018 and the appointment letter dated 11.02.2019 pursuant to the approval order dated 15.01.2019 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, granting approval to the selection of respondent nos. 7 and 8.

¶24

In the counter affidavit, it has been averred that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the answering respondent.

¶25

In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have denied the contents of the averments made in para 4, 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit alleging that letter was issued by the then Head Master Sri Bhola

¶26

Ram for making selection for two vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in the institution. The petitioners have averred that no permission for publication of advertisement was sought by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur. No publication in the news papers was done. Neither any permission was given by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur for publication, no nominee was nominated and no Selection Committee was constituted. Entire selection is de-hors the Rules 1978.

¶27

In response the petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit has averred that the petitioner no. 1 being the Manager and petitioner no. 2 being the Head Master have the locus to challenge any illegal appointment. Further it has been stated that Sri Bholaram, the officiating Head Master and one of the member of the Selection Committee has given a notarial affidavit dated 27.06.2019 denying his participation in selection proceedings.

¶28

Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

From the record, it reflects that serious dispute between rival group of Committee of Management exists in the Institution. Sri Balram Nishad headed one group and 2^nd group was headed by Thakur Prasad Nishad and one by Sri Keshar Bind. The matter came up to this Court in Writ-C No. 4873 of 2023 (Committee of Management Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidhyalay Samittee Burhupur Saray and another vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). This Court vide order dated 22.04.2022 have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

¶30

The appointment of the respondent no. 7 and 8 was done by Sri Balram Nishad, the then Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution.

¶31

The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, in its counter affidavit has clearly averred that selection procedure started pursuant to permission granted by him vide order dated 26.09.2018. Pursuant thereto, advertisement in the daily newspapers was published on 10.12.2018 inviting application for vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in the institution. Pursuant to which 16 applications were received. Thereafter a nominee of Basic Shiksha Adhikari was nominated for supervising the selection process. The Selection Committee was constituted on 05.01.2019 under Chairmanship of Sri Balram Nishad, Member of Committee of Management of Institution. Pursuant thereto, interview were conducted and selection papers along with merit list of candidates were forwarded to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for approval. The Basic Shiksha

¶32

Adhikari vide approval order dated 15.01.2019 granted approval to the selection of respondent nos. 7 and 8. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the procedure as prescribed in Rule 1978 for Selection for the posts of Assistant Teacher in the Institution has been followed and the same is not de hors the Rules 1978. So far as notarial affidavit dated 27.06.2019, denying part of the Selection Committee appears to be a motivated notarial affidavit and it appears that in the ongoing tussle between the rival fraction of the Committee of Management, the said Balram, officiating Head Master has changed side. The notarial affidavit does not inspire confidence in the Court as such, there exists no occasion to discard the version/stand taken by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the counter affidavit.

¶33

For the reasons aforesaid this Court declines to interfere in the matter and as a result both the aforesaid writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶34

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶35

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

C/M Indira Purva Madhyamic Vidyalaya and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Indira Purva Madhyamic Vidyalaya and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Danish Kamal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ayushman Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Subhawati Devi Vs Union of India and 3 Others

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

Sudha Rani Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Naresh Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others