Allowed

C/M of Smt Har Pyari Devi Kanya Junior High School and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024WRIA/10903/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a miscellaneous order in a writ petition challenging notices issued to a school management regarding the appointment documents of an employee. The court stayed the operation of the notices, admitted the petition, and issued notice for counter affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the operation of the notice dated 07.06.2024 issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police and the consequential notice dated 22.06.2024 issued by the District Basic Education Officer.

C/M of Smt Har Pyari Devi Kanya… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10903 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Of Smt Har Pyari Devi Kanya Junior High School And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sankalp Narain,Srivats Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sankalp Narain and Shri Srivats Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶7

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the letter / notice dated 07.06.2024 issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police (S.T.F.) U.P., Lucknow as well as the consequential notice dated 22.06.2024 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras.

¶8

By the aforesaid notices, District Basic Education Officer, Hathras directed the Committee of Management / petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to ensure the production of documents pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner no.3 namely Km. Anjana Sharma along-with all her educational documents for the purpose of inquiry which is purportedly being conducted under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The consequential letter dated 22.06.2024 issued by the District Basic Education Officer to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are also under challenged by which the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were directed to produce the papers pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner no.3 along-with all her educational documents.

¶9

Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that there is an institution by the name of Smt. Harpyari Devi Kanya Junior High School Rohai Hathras which is a recognized basic institution, thus is governed strictly in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act of 1972 as well as the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules 1978. In the institution in question, one post of Headmistress, 29 posts of Assistant Teacher, one post of Assistant Clerk and 3 posts of Class-IV employees had been sanctioned by the State Government. Petitioner no.3 was appointed by the duly constituted Selection Committee and thereafter appointment letter was issued in her favour by the Committee of Management in the year 2008. Since the institution in question was not grant in aid list, the petitioner management preferred a writ petition before this Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2019.

¶10

Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, a Special Appeal being Special Appeal (Defective) No. 1196 of 2020 was preferred by the State Government. The said

¶11

special appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2012. Not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the State Government filed a Special Leave to Appeal being SLP No. 3100 of 2021 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2021. For compliance of the judgment and order dated 18.09.2019, a contempt application being Contempt Application No. 3549 of 2020 was preferred by the Committee of Management, wherein notices were issued to the Secretary Basic Education for bringing the petitioner-institution on the grants in-aid list of the State Government and for payment of salary to the teaching and non teaching staff, who had been employed in the institution.

¶12

In order to circumvent the said judgment and order, a report was sought from the District Basic Education Officer in respect of filing of Review Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 3100 of 2021. The District Basic Education Officer consequently submitted that report wherein she recommended that Review be filed in SLP No. 3100 of 2021 for reviewing the judgment and order dated 16.04.2021. In pursuance of the aforesaid report, a review was filed in SLP No. 3100 of 2021 bearing Diary No. 23464 of 2021. The said review was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶13

After the aforesaid orders were passed, the Regional Level Committee was constituted at the level of State Government comprising of Assistant Director of Education (Basic), District Basic Education Officer, Hathras, the Finance and Accounts Officer (Basic) Aligarh and the Principal of Rajkiya Balika Inter College, Aligarh to examine the issue of payment of salary to the employees of the petitioner-institution from the State exchequer. Thereafter certain orders were passed but ultimately the Regional Level Committee passed an order on 27.06.2023 including the petitioner no.3 in grant in aid list. Copy of the order dated 27.06.2023 is appended as Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order, reads as follows:-

¶14

" उक्त कके आललोक मम मण्डललीय समममति दद्वारद्वा सररसम्ममति सके यह मनिररय ललयद्वा जद्वातिद्वा हहै ककी मद्वानिनिलीय उच्च न्यद्वायद्वालय इलद्वाहद्वाबद्वाद मम यलोलजति ररट यद्वामचकद्वा ससंख्यद्वा 21564/2018 मम पद्वाररति आदकेश मदनिद्वासंक 18.09.2019 ककी मतिलथि सके शलीमतिली हररप्यद्वारली दकेरली कन्यद्वा जजूमनियर हद्वाईस्कजूल रलोहई , हद्वाथिरस मम कद्वाय र ति मद्वात्र ससुशली ममतिद्वा शमद्वार पसुत्र शली ओम प्रकद्वाश शमद्वार , ससुशली गलीतिद्वा खण्डकेलरद्वाल पसुत्रली शली ससुभद्वाष चन्द खण्डकेलरद्वाल , ससुशली असंजनिद्वा शमद्वार पसुत्रली शली मरमल कसुमद्वार शमद्वार , ससुशली बबृजकेश कसुमद्वारली पसुत्रली शली मसुन्शलीलद्वाल , ससुशली श्रकेतिद्वा रद्वारररय पसुत्रली शली अशलोक कसुमद्वार रद्वारररय , ससुशली लक्ष्मली दकेरली पसुत्रली सतिलीश चन्द शमद्वार , ससुशली गुजनि शमद्वार पसुत्रली शली मशर कसुमद्वार शमद्वार स , ससुशली ममतिद्वा पसुत्रली शली मलोहनि लससंह ( कसुल 08 सहद्वायक अध्यद्वामपकद्वाओसं ) तिथिद्वा शली कसुलदलीप शमद्वार पसुत्र शली कन्हहैयद्वालद्वाल शमद्वार ( ललमपक ) एरसं शली अममति कसुमद्वार गसुपद्वा पसुत्र शली रद्वाजकेन्द प्रसद्वाद गसुपद्वा , शली ससंजलीर लसकररद्वार पसुत्र शली इन्दजलीति लससंह , शली प्रदलीप कसुमद्वार पसुत्र शली धम र लीर लससंह ( च०शके०क० ) कके रकेतिनि भसुगतिद्वानि हकेतिसु अनिसुमन्यतिद्वा आदकेश मनिगरति मकयद्वा जद्वातिद्वा हहै । यमद

¶15

प्रकरर मम कलोई तिथ्य मछिपद्वायद्वा गयद्वा हहै अथिरद्वा भमररय मम कलोई अमभलकेख / पत्रद्वाजद्वाति कजूटरमघिति पद्वायद्वा जद्वातिद्वा हहै तिलो यह आदकेश मनिगरमनि मतिलथि सके स्रतितः हली मनिरस्ति समझद्वा जद्वायकेगद्वा तिथिद्वा सम्बनन्धति संथिद्वा कके स प्रबन्धक / दलोमषययों कद्वा उत्तरदद्वामयत्र मनिधद्वा र रति करतिके हहयके सक्षम स्तिर सके कद्वाय र द्वाहली अमल मम लद्वायली जद्वायकेगली। "

¶16

One Shri Ashok Kumar Pachauri preferred the writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid decision taken by the Regional Level Committee being Writ A No. 16889 of 2023. The said writ petition was entertained and the notices were issued to the respondents but no interim order whatsoever has been granted in favour of the petitioner. In paragraph-37 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner no. 3 pursuant to the order dated 27.06.2023 started getting salary on the post of Assistant Teacher. It is further argued that Shri Ashok Kumar Pachauri also made a complaint before the District Magistrate against the appointment of the petitioner no.3. The said complaint was duly entertained by the District Magistrate and an inquiry committee was constituted. Ultimately the aforesaid committee has submitted a report in favour of the petitioner no.3 and rejected the complaint on 18.01.2024, copy of which is appended as Annexure-21 to the writ petition. Thereafter the District Magistrate, Hathras close the inquiry pursuant to the frivolous complaint made by Shri Ashok Kumar Pachauri.

¶17

It is further argued that one Ved Prakash also submitted a complaint on 16.04.2024 address to the District Basic Education Officer. It is argued that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras issued a notice to the Committee of Management as well as petitioner no. 3 namely Km. Anjana Sharma as well as the complainant namely Ved Prakash.

¶18

It is stated in the supplementary affidavit that when the notices were sent through registered post, a remarks was made by the postman that "after much investigation no one was found, house number wrong, returned".

¶19

In this view of the matter, it is argued that the complaint made by one Ved Prakash is absolutely frivolous and without any basis. It is further argued that the complaint made is not supported by any affidavit and in view of the order passed from time to time such kind of complaint could not be taken into consideration. It is further argued that inspite of the aforesaid fact, notice dated 07.06.2024 was issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police (S.T.F.) U.P., Lucknow and consequent to the same, the letter dated 22.06.2024 has also been issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras. It is argued that both the aforesaid letters are per se illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶20

On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that by the aforesaid letters, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were directed to place the necessary papers and documents pertaining to the educational qualification of the petitioner no.3, hence the present writ petition is premature and

¶21

is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶23

From perusal of the record, it transpires that Regional Level Committee constituted to examine the issue of payment of salary to the employees of the petitioner-institution from the State exchequer and Regional Level Committee has passed an order on 27.06.2023, by which a direction was given to make the payment of salary to the petitioner no.3 and other teachers. Subsequent to the same, petitioner no. 3 also started getting her salary. Apart from the same, time and again a complaint was made by some unknown persons and all the complaint was rejected. Inspite of the same, notice in question has been issued which are under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶24

Matter requires consideration.

¶25

Admit.

¶26

Issue notice. Since learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents, notices need not be issued.

¶27

As prayed, three weeks' time is granted to the counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit. Petitioner will have two weeks' thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶28

List after the exchange of affidavits.

¶29

Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the letter / notice dated 07.06.2024 issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police (S.T.F.) U.P., Lucknow as well as the consequential notice dated 22.06.2024 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras, shall remain stayed.

¶30

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Swati

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

C/M of Smt Har Pyari Devi Kanya Junior High School and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M of Smt Har Pyari Devi Kanya Junior High School and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 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

Rajpal Singh vs State of U.P.

Gayatri Devi and 5 Others vs S Rajlingam District Magistrate and Another

Vinod Kumar Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt Ramwati and 3 Others

Krishna Nand Rai vs State of Up and 4 Others

Rajesh Tyagi vs State of Up and 4 Others