Malti Adarsh Balika Vidhyalaya, Lko., Thru. Manager Gyaneshwar Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48364

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5388 of 2024

Petitioner :- Malti Adarsh Balika Vidhyalaya, Lko., Thru. Manager Gyaneshwar Tripathi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Tiwari

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 16.05.2023 and 01.07.2023. By means of order dated 16.05.2023, recommendation of petitioners' Institution for grant of financial approval to four teachers appointed in the Institution in December 2022 has been rejected. Vide impugned order dated 01.07.2023, the Management's representation has again been rejected placing reliance on Government Order dated 19.06.2023 to the effect that a ban has been imposed.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are five sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers in the Primary Section of the Institution concerned, out of which four fell vacant by 2021 and correspondence was made by petitioners' Institution with the concerned authorities for grant of approval for recruitment to the same but when the said was not afforded, the Management adhering to conditions indicated in the relevant regulations made appointment on the said four posts and entire documents pertaining to said selection were forwarded by the Management to the Basic Education Officer, vide letter dated 30.12.2022 as is admitted in the impugned order dated 16.05.2023.

¶10

However, the financial approval has been rejected on the ground that most of the relevant documents have not been supplied by the Management. Although learned counsel for petitioners disputes the same but seeks liberty that opportunity may be granted to the Management for furnishing the fresh documents pertaining to the aforesaid selection which may be considered by the authority concerned.

¶11

With regard to impugned order dated 01.07.2023, it has been submitted that the same itself indicates that it has been issued in pursuance of the Government Order dated 19.06.2023, which it

¶12

is submitted, would be inapplicable in the present case where the selection process had already been completed by December 2022 and therefore the Government Order dated 19.06.2023 would not have any retrospective application.

¶13

With regard to another ground of rejection that prior approval was not sought from the Basic Education Officer for selection on the aforesaid posts, learned counsel has drawn attention to Rule 9 of the U.P. Recognized Basic School (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules 1975 to submit that prior approval is required to be taken only before issuance of appointment letters and not before initiation of selection process.

¶14

Learned State counsel appearing for opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that the aforesaid selections are clearly barred by provisions of Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules of 1975. However, it is admitted as per the impugned order that relevant documents were not supplied by the Management.

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, particularly the impugned orders, it is evident that financial approval has been rejected primarily on the ground that the Management has not supplied requisite documents pertaining to the aforesaid selection. The aspect of whether prior approval is required in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1975 before selection or only before issuance of appointment letters is also a factor which requires consideration. The aspect as to whether Government Order dated 19.06.2023 would have retrospective applicability is also a factor required to be considered.

¶16

However in view of the fact that primary ground for rejection is that relevant documents have not been supplied by the Management, liberty is granted to the Management to furnish details and relevant documents the absence of which has been indicated in the impugned order dated 16.05.2023, to the Basic Education Officer within a period of two weeks from today. Upon receipt of the aforesaid documents, the Basic Education Officer concerned shall pass fresh orders with regard to the application of the Management pertaining to financial approval for the aforesaid selection within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the aforesaid application by the Management. The aspects as indicated hereinabove shall also be considered by the Basic Education Officer particularly with regard to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1975 and applicability of the Government Order dated 19.06.2023 on selection process which has already concluded on 30.12.2022.

¶17

In view of aforesaid directions being issued, the impugned orders dated 16.05.2023 and 01.07.2023 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. Further direction is issued to the Basic Education Officer concerned to adhere to the directions issued hereinabove.

¶18

Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶19

Order Date : - 18.7.2024 Subodh/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Malti Adarsh Balika Vidhyalaya, Lko., Thru. Manager Gyaneshwar Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malti Adarsh Balika Vidhyalaya, Lko., Thru. Manager Gyaneshwar Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Girvar Singh Katiyar Vs the Commitatee of Management Vivekanand Inter College

Baleel Khan Vs State of U.P.through Secy.

Janak Dulari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 2 Others

Prabhnjanam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Vinod Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko. and Another

Achche Lal Vs Secretary, Jalkar Vibhag, Nagar Nigam Lko. and 3 Others