Allahabad High Court
Visheshwar Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 May, 2011
Bench: Arun Tandon
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27156 of 2011
Petitioner :- Visheshwar Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned Advocate on behalf of petitioner, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for private respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present writ petition may be disposed of at this stage itself without calling for further affidavit, specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today by the Court.
The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria vide order dated 11th March, 2011, in compliance to the orders of the Writ Court dated 19th April, 2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50933 of 2006 and that dated 15th February, 2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40931 of 2006, has held that the appointment of respondent nos. 7 to 10 has been made in primary section of the institution, namely, Sarvodaya Intermediate College, Gadha Bankata Station, Deoria, which is an aided and recognised intermediate college within sanctioned strength.
This order is being challenged before the Court on the ground that the finding so recorded by the District Inspector of Schools is perverse and further that there has been complete non-consideration of the issue, that even if there were vacancies in the primary section of the institution, whether the appointment of respondent nos. 7 to 10 had been made after following the procedure prescribed under law or not.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that not even a single relevant factor has been noticed in the impugned order qua the mode and manner of appointment of such respondents, therefore, the impugned order is bad. He explains that some of the respondents were not even party to the earlier writ petition filed in the year 1991 i.e. the time when the institution was taken into grant-in-aid list. It is only a belated stage that they joined and have been successful in obtaining order for payment of salary.
Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 to 10 submits that the appointment of respondent nos. 7 to 10 has been made in accordance with law and against available vacancies. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the matter at the behest of petitioners, who claims to be the members of the society only.
I am of the considered opinion that it is not in dispute that there is no committee of management in the institution and therefore, the members of the general body, which has established the institution, have right to ensure that only validly appointed teachers are permitted to function and are paid salary from the State exchequer. In any view of the matter, the District Inspector of Schools while considering the issue pertaining to the payment of salary to the teachers concerned in terms of the order of the Writ Court referred to above, was under legal obligation to have noticed the relevant facts and the statutory provisions applicable for coming to the conclusion that the appointment of teachers concerned has been made after following the procedure prescribed by law. Mere availability of the vacancies cannot be the criteria for directing payment of salary through State exchequer. This Court may record that absolutely no relevant facts have been noticed in the impugned order, which could demonstrate that the procedure prescribed by law had been followed/adopted before offering appointment to respondent nos. 7 to 10.
In view of the aforesaid, the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11th March, 2011 directing payment of salary to respondent nos. 7 to 10 cannot be approved of and is hereby set aside.
Let the District Inspector of Schools examine the matter afresh in light of the observations made above after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, preferably within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.
The present writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.
(Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 16.5.2011
Sushil/-
