Allowed

C/M Saleem High Secondary School Khairabad Thru. Manager v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education and Ors.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024WRIC/16227/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench quashed an order that reduced sanctioned posts for Assistant Teachers from 12 to 8. The court held the Director erred by applying older Government Orders instead of the 2012 Order mandated by this court for post redetermination, directing compliance within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.02.2018 quashed; Director of Education commanded to pass appropriate orders within six weeks in keeping with Government Order dated 15.06.2012.

C/M Saleem High Secondary School Khairabad Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8189

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16227 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Saleem High Secondary School Khairabad Thru. Manager Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh,Ashish Verma,Girish Chandra Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27547 of 2019 Petitioner :- Renu Shrivastva Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Secondary Education Dept. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Kuldeep,Ashok Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9702 of 2023 Petitioner :- Renu Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Secondery Edu. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Bajpai,Ashok Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Girish Chandra Verma, Mr. Ashok Shukla and Mr. Rakesh Bajpai, learned counsels for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties and Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 23.02.2018 whereby Director has determined 8 posts of Assistant Teachers to be sanctioned in the Institution in question in the Saleem High Secondary, School, Khairabad, Sultanpur. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties for revival of four posts of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in the Institution has been sought.

¶9

It has been submitted that initially vide order dated 29.09.1977, six posts of L.T. Grade Teachers and six posts of C.T. Grade Teachers + one post of Headmaster was sanctioned by the Education Authority. Subsequently due to C.T. Grade being declared a Dying Cadre, the aforesaid posts were also merged in the L.T. Grade with the consequence that 12 posts of Assistant Teacher in the L.T. Grade stood sanctioned in the Institution in question.

¶10

It is submitted that subsequently due to directions issued by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No.26307 of 2010; Dhruv Narain Singh versus State of U.P. & Ors. , Government Order dated 15.06.2012 was issued by the State Government primarily to consider whether appropriate posts in the Institution was sanctioned or not and to determine the excess posts created on which teachers were working.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Government Order dated 15.06.2012 clearly stipulated the conditions under which the consideration for sanction of posts were to be seen.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance of aforesaid directions of this Court and Government Order, the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 28.02.2017 in pursuance of the conditions indicated in the Government Order dated 15.06.2012 recommended that there should be 12 posts sanctioned as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade but despite such recommendation, impugned order has been passed determining only 8 sanctioned posts of Assistant Teacher in the L.T. Grade in the Institution in question placing reliance on Government Orders dated 09.08.1999 and 20.11.1976, which even otherwise were inapplicable.

¶13

It has also been submitted that in similar circumstances, orders pertaining to other Institutions have been passed strictly in accordance with Government Order dated 15.06.2012 whereas a deviation has been made by the authority concerned only with regard to present Institution.

¶14

Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties however has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that in pursuance of directions issued by this Court in the case of Dhruv Narain Singh (supra), it was the duty of Education Authorities to consider the aspect as to whether appropriate posts of Assistant Teachers in any Institution were sanctioned or not and for this purpose, reliance has rightly been placed on the Government Order dated 09.08.1999 whereby the average strength of students was to be seen in accordance with ratio indicated in Government Order dated 20.11.1976 whereafter 8 posts of L.T. Grade Teachers were found to be established and therefore sanctioned.

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as indicated herein above are quite evident that exercise with regard to consideration of sanctioned posts in the Institutions was undertaken in view of directions issued by this Court, in

¶16

pursuance of which the Government Order dated 15.06.2012 was also issued indicating the three factors as per which the department was required to consider the strength of posts sanctioned.

¶17

Relevant portion of the Government Order dated 15.06.2012 clearly indicates the fact that the three conditions required to be seen by the District Inspector of Schools in a recommendation was; (a) on the basis of original posts sanction order, in case available; (b) as per the initial/ first pay bill in terms of the Payment of Salaries Act of 1971 as approved by the District Inspector of Schools; (c) as per the financial report submitted for the year 1986-1987 or in terms of students strength, which ever is lesser.

¶18

It is quite evident therefore that the opposite parties were bound by the conditions indicated in Government Order dated 15.06.2012. A fact which is to be kept in mind is that the present dispute does not pertain to creation of fresh sanction of posts but instead was carried out only in accordance with directions issued by this Court particularly to ascertain whether correct sanction of posts have been made with regard to Institution or not.

¶19

A perusal of impugned order however indicates that instead of adhering to the conditions indicated in the Government Order dated 15.06.2012, which was issued for this very specific purpose, the Director of Education has instead placed reliance on Government Orders dated 09.08.1999 and 20.11.1976 to reach a conclusion that only eight posts of sanctioned teachers were required in the Institution.

¶20

A perusal of the report submitted by the District Inspector of Schools reveals that it has been reported that a total of 375 students were studying in the Institution in question as in 20162017. The report also indicates 138 students in 2009-2010 and 303 students in the year 2015-2016 which clearly exhibit the growing enrollment of students in the Institution.

¶21

The impugned order also admits the fact that there were 375 students in the college in question as in the year 2016-2017 but has thereafter adverted to average of 313 students taking into account the students available in the college ever since 20142015. This has been done purportedly in purview of the Government Order dated 09.08.1999.

¶22

However a perusal of Government Order dated 09.08.1999, a copy of which has been produced by learned counsel for petitioner, which is taken on record indicates the criteria which

¶23

was required for the purposes of determination of students strength but only for the purposes of sanction of new section in any Institution between Class VI to XII. On the basis of determination of students strength as per Government Order dated 09.08.1999, the strength of teacher has been determined as per Government Order dated 20.11.1976.

¶24

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Director has clearly misdirected himself by taking into consideration the Government Orders dated 09.08.1999 and 20.11.1976. It is the admitted case of parties that dispute did not pertain to sanction of new sections or posts of teachers but the entire exercise was to be effected only in pursuance of directions issued by this Court in the case of Dhruv Narain Singh (supra) as well as the Government Order dated 15.06.2012 in which conditions required to be seen by the Director were indicated itself. In case the State Government had felt the necessity of incorporating Government Orders dated 09.08.1999 and 20.11.1976 to be seen as a criteria for fixation of sanctioned strength of teachers in the Institution, it would have specifically indicated so in the Government Order dated 15.06.2012 but the said reference has been specifically ignored and three new conditions have been indicated as noticed herein above.

¶25

The report of District Inspector of Schools dated 28.02.2017 however clearly indicates that it is in fact based on the criteria determined by Government Order dated 15.06.2012 and has placed reliance on the initial posts creation order which was duly sanctioned and which clearly exhibited creation of 12 posts in the college in question vide order dated 29.09.1977. It is not the case of opposite parties that the posts creation vide order dated 29.09.1977 was obtained by any fraud, misrepresentation or concealment or that it was at any time subsequently rescinded, modified or varied.

¶26

In view of aforesaid, it is evident that the report of District Inspector of Schools was perfectly in consonance with the Government Order dated 15.06.2012 which was required to be adhered to by Director of Education who has instead passed the impugned order on a criteria which was not required to be taken into account.

¶27

It is also worth observing that in the case of Muslim Jubali Girls Inter College, Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar and Jetwan Inter College, Shrawasti, the concerned authority himself has passed appropriate orders in consonance only with the Government Order dated 15.06.2012 and has not at all adverted to the Government Order dated 09.08.1999 and 20.11.1976.

¶28

In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 23.02.2018 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no.2 i.e. Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow to pass appropriate orders in the light of observations made herein above, strictly in consonance with and in keeping with Government Order dated 15.06.2012 as well as the report of District Inspector of Schools dated 28.02.2017. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

¶29

Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed . The parties to bear their own costs.

¶30

In WRIT - A No. - 27547 of 2019 ; Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for regular monthly payment of salary to petitioner in pursuance of appointment letter dated 22.12.2015 and in WRIT -A No.9702 of 2023 has been filed challenging order dated 22.08.2023 whereby the Management of the Institution has been restrained from taking work from the petitioner primarily on the ground that upon redetermination of sanctioned strength of Assistant Teachers in the Institution in question, petitioner's appointment does not come within eight sanctioned posts.

¶31

Since in WRIT - C No. - 16227 of 2018 , it has already been directed that appropriate orders shall be passed, petitioners' continuance or otherwise and salary payment in the Institution in question would be dependent upon the final orders passed by the Director of Education.

¶32

In view of aforesaid, both these petitions are disposed of with a direction to District Inspector of Schools to take an appropriate decision after receipt of orders passed by Director of Education as per direction issued in WRIT - C No.- 16227 of 2018 .

¶33

Order Date : - 29.1.2024 Subodh/-

¶34

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

C/M Saleem High Secondary School Khairabad Thru. Manager v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Saleem High Secondary School Khairabad Thru. Manager v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punam @ Kumari Punam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Guru Bachan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Secondary Education and Others

Smt. Sadhna Tripathi Vs the Commissioner and Registrar Cooperative U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Nand Kishore Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Ram Shiromani Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others

Fazal Ahmad Usmani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minorities Welfare Lko. and 3 Others