Disposed

C/M R.D. Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay Thru. Manager Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. , Secondary Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024WRIA/8498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by an aided institution challenging orders directing appointment of Class IV employees selected by a committee constituted under a 2022 Government Order, contending the Principal remains appointing authority under Regulation 100. Court found submissions to have prima facie force and stayed operation of the impugned orders pending consideration.

What did the court decide?

Stay on operation of impugned orders dated 09.03.2024, 12.03.2024 and 11.09.2024 until next date; Institution may make appointments from forwarded list if it so desires.

C/M R.D. Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay Thru… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8498 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M R.D. Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay Thru. Manager Shri Harish Chandra Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. , Secondary Edu. Lko And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Madhav Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today in Court on the behalf of opposite parties is taken on record as is supplementary affidavit filed on behalf petitioners.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 09.03.2024, 12.03.2024 and 11.09.2024 whereby Class IV employees have been selected by the Committee constituted in terms of Government Order dated 28.10.2022 for purposes of appointment in the Institution in question.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in terms of Regulations 100 and 101 framed under Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, it is only the Principal of the Institution who is Appointing Authority of Class IV employees. It is submitted that procedure for appointment on Class IV employees has thereafter been amended by amending Regulation 101 of the aforesaid Regulations but without any corresponding amendment in Regulation 100 of the Regulations, Appointing Authority still remains the Principal of the Institution.

¶10

It is submitted that while petitioners is not challenging the aspect of change in procedure for appointment, he is aggrieved by direction issued by the Authorities specifically to appoint persons who have been selected in terms of the Government Order dated 28.10.2022 and submits that while the Authorities in terms of the aforesaid Government Order are very well authorized to forward names of candidate selected, it is the prerogative of the Principal of the Institution to

¶11

make appointments from the said list and no specific direction can be issued by the Authorities for appointment of all the persons whose names have been forwarded.

¶12

It is also submitted that since the Government Order dated 28.10.2022 merely changes the procedure for appointment on a Class IV post of an Institution and petitioners not having any grievance with regard to that, there is no occasion for him to challenge the Government Order dated 28.10.2022 since even otherwise Government Orders and Administrative Instructions do not have any primacy over statutory provisions such as Regulation 100 of the Regulations framed under the Act.

¶13

Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners have force and require consideration for which opposite parties, particularly since the counter affidavit admits the fact that the Principal of Intermediate Education Institution is in fact the Appointing Authority of Class IV employees under Regulation 100 of the Regulations framed under the Act.

¶14

In view of aforesaid, list this case on 20.11.2024. Pleadings shall be exchanged in the meantime.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, operation of impugned orders dated 09.03.2024, 12.03.2024 and 11.09.2024 shall remain stayed. It is however open to the petitioners' Institution to make appointment from the list forwarded by the Committee on any Class IV posts in case they so desire for smooth functioning of the Institution.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.10.2024 Subodh/-

¶17

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

C/M R.D. Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay Thru. Manager Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. , Secondary Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M R.D. Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay Thru. Manager Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. , Secondary Edu. Lko and 3 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

Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 6 Others

Meera Srivastava and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Muneshwar vs U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director and 3 Others

Amlesh Kumar Pandey vs Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Tomar, Director, Agricultural Directorate, U.P., Lko. and Another

Ashok Dhar Dwivedi, Thru. His Brother Rajesh Dhar Diwedi vs Shree Bhaskar Pandey, Joint Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Subhash Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others