Partly allowed

Smt. Sunayana Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2024WRIA/13214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Allahabad High Court varied an order whereby the Director of Education had cancelled a teacher's appointment after years. The court held that the 2024 cancellation order was unsustainable as it ignored an earlier 2007 absorption order and violated natural justice. The 2024 orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Director for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed. Impugned order dated 09.08.2024 and consequential order dated 20.08.2024 set aside and matter remitted to Director of Education within two months.

Smt. Sunayana Pandey vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145943

¶2

Reserved on 31.08.2024 Delivered on 09.09.2024

¶3

Court No. - 9

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13214 of 2024

¶5

Petitioner :- Smt. Sunayana Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajkaran Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶7

The petitioner before this Court was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T.Grade on 01.12.2001 in subject "Home Science", which was mentioned in her appointment letter and she joined the institution known as Tyagi Inter College, Aichwar, Chitrakoot on 11.12.2001. The appointment was made as a Subject Expert pursuant to the Government Order of the year 1999.

¶8

The petitioner had initially applied as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in Hindi/Sanskrit subject since her educational qualification was Bachelor of Arts with subject of Hindi, Sanskrit and Political Science. According to the petitioner, she had moved an application for correction of subject mentioned in her appointment letter, but her application was not considered. Her engagement was renewed and she worked at Tyagi Inter College till 31.05.2003. With effect from 01.01.2004 she was posted in Adarsh Inter College, Manikpur by the orders of Joint Director of Education, Jhansi, which mentioned Subject Expert (L.T.).

¶9

Section 21-E was added in U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 which provides for 'Absorption of Subject Experts'. The Director of Education issued absorption order on 08.02.2007 by which petitioner was directed to be absorbed against the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi/Sanskrit subject. Necessary orders were passed by District Inspector of Schools on 28.5.2007 which has been brought on record through the present writ petition.

¶10

It appears that after a lapse of about 21 years, a complaint has been made by one Sri Ram Mohan before the Director of Education that initial appointment of petitioner was as Subject Expert for Home Science but she is

¶11

1 of 4

¶12

working as an Assistant Teacher, L.T.Grade in Hindi/Sanskrit. Vide order dated 29.6.2022 the salary of the petitioner was stopped pending inquiry. The said order was challenged before this Court through Writ-A No.10905 of 2022 wherein coordinate Bench, while allowing the writ petition, directed for concluding the inquiry but the petitioner was held entitled to regular monthly salary along with emoluments in consequence thereof.

¶13

It appears that the complainant Ram Mohan had initiated contempt proceedings in which notices were issued against Director of Education who on 09.08.2024 exercising power under Section 16-E(10) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 had proceeded to hold that the appointment of the petitioner was against the provision of law and has declared it to be void. Further, the salary, which was paid to the petitioner, is also directed to be realized from her. The Manager, thereafter, on 20.08.2024 passed the consequential order

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent/Director failed to consider the absorption order which was passed by him on 08.02.2007 absorbing the petitioner against the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi/Sanskrit subject. According to him, once the order was passed by the second respondent himself in the year 2007, no occasion arises after 17 years for recalling that order and without disclosing the same in his order impugned.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification of Home Science and she was appointed initially as a Subject Expert of Home Science in the year 2001 in Tyagi Inter College. Her subsequent posting at different institution shows that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, L.T.Grade, in Hindi/Sanskrit. According to him, once the petitioner lacks the basic qualification of 'Home Science', she cannot be appointed as a Subject Expert.

¶16

I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶17

The short controversy involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioner had applied in the year 2001 as a Subject Expert of

¶18

2 of 4

¶19

Hindi/Sanskrit or not, and her appointment was made wrongly as a Subject Expert Home Science or not?

¶20

The case set up by the petitioner reveals that though the initial appointment letter reveals that she was appointed as a Subject Expert in Home Science, but, immediately after joining the institution on 11.12.2001, she had made an application for making correction in her appointment letter. Her engagement was renewed and she was posted at different college. The Director of Education on 08.02.2007 proceeded to pass order absorbing the services on the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi/Sanskrit subject in terms of provision of Section 21-E inserted in the Act, 1982. The order of Director of Education was acted upon and the necessary communication was made by the District Inspector of Schools on 28.05.2007. Since then, the petitioner claims to be teaching as Subject Expert of Hindi/Sanskrit in the institution she has been posted. The proceedings for cancelling her appointment started on a complaint made by one Sri Ram Mohan after 17 years from the date of absorption of the petitioner. The sole ground taken in the complaint was that she did not possess the qualification of Subject Expert of Home Science.

¶21

The orders passed by Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools of the year 2007 clearly reveal that the petitioner has been absorbed on the post of Assistant Teacher Hindi/Sanskrit subject. The second respondent was to decide the complaint on the basis of material which was before him and also to take note of the reply filed by the petitioner wherein she has specifically stated that after her initial joining in 2001, an application was made by her for correcting the appointment order as Subject Expert of Hindi/Sanskrit in place of Home Science. Her entire case is that her initial application was for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T.Grade in Hindi/Sanskrit and she had never applied to be appointed as Subject Expert of Home Science.

¶22

The second respondent has failed to address the said issue and record any finding. He has only relied upon the report of District Inspector of Schools and proceeded to cancel the appointment and passed the order for recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner for the period she had worked as an Assistant Teacher. The Director of Education has miserably failed to consider that he

¶23

3 of 4

¶24

himself in the year 2007 had passed the order for absorption of petitioner as Subject Expert in Hindi/Sanskrit.

¶25

Once the order of 2007 stands, the subsequent order passed in the year 2024 without taking note of the order of 2007 is against the principles of natural justice and amounts to arbitrary action of the Director of Education.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order dated 09.08.2024 and the consequential order dated 20.08.2024 issued by the Manager of the institution (Annexure 1 and 11 to the writ petition) are unsustainable in the eyes of law and both the orders are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Director of Education to accord afresh consideration considering the absorption order passed by him on 08.02.2007 as well as consequential order passed by District Inspector of Schools on 28.05.2007 as well as considering the original application moved by the petitioner for appointing her as a Subject Expert in the year 2001 pursuant to the scheme of State Government issued in the year 1999.

¶27

The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the second respondent within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

¶28

The writ petition stands partly allowed .

¶29

Order Date :- 9.9.2024 Kushal

¶30

4 of 4

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sunayana Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunayana Pandey 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Sanjay Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hem Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Pal and 7 Others vs Mr Surendra Kumar Tiwari, Secretary and Another

Jitendra Tyagi vs Indra Vikram Singh , District Magistrate , Ghaziabad

M/S Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Prescribed Authority Payment of Wages Act 1936 and 7 Others

Paras Rai vs Sri Ashish Goel, Chairman, U.P.P.C.L. and Another