Allahabad High Court
Gram Shiksha Samiti,Primary ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 4 December, 2015
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53525 of 2011
Petitioner :- Gram Shiksha Samiti,Primary School Pakri Devri And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar,Tripathi B.G. Bhai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand P.Pandey,K.S. Shukla,M.D. Mishra,Rajendra Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1. Heard Smt. Anita Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.C. Pathak, learned standing counsel for respondent no.1 and 3 and Sri M.D. Misra, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
2. No one appears for respondent nos.2 and 4.
3. This writ petition has been filed by the Gram Shiksha Samiti praying to quash the order dated 24.6.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar directing for payment of honorarium to the respondent no.5.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by unanimous resolution dated 19.5.2007 the engagement of respondent no.5 (Shiksha Mitra) was cancelled after following due procedure as provided in clause 9 of the Government Order No. 2604/15-5-99-282-98. The said resolution has not been set aside by any authority of Court. Under the circumstances it was not open for the District Magistrate to issue direction by the impugned order to pay honorarium to the respondent no.5. It is further submitted that the resolution dated 19.5.2007 was not challenged by the petitioner before any court.
5. Sri M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.5 submits that the petitioners have illegally passed the resolution and consequently, the respondent no.5 approached the District Magistrate who lawfully several times passed the impugned order directing for payment of honorarium to the respondent no.5. He submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Clause Nos. 6,7,8 and 9 of the Government Order No. 2604/15-5-99-282-98 provides as follows:
6- f'k{kk feJ dk p;u& ¼d½ xzke f'k{kk lfefr f'k{kk [email protected]=ksa ds p;u gsrq cSBd vkgwr djsxh] ftlesa lfefr ds lnL;ksa dh dqy la[;k ds nks frgkbZ lnL;ksa dh mifLFkfr vfuok;Z gksxhA
¼[k½ lfefr ds }kjk lnL;ksa ds lEeq[k miyC/k vgZ O;fDr;ksa dh lwph IkzLrqr dh tk;sxh] ;g lwph muds }kjk gkbZLdwy rFkk b.VjehfM,V ijh{kk ds izkIr dqy vadks ds izfr'kr ds vkSlr vadksa ds vk/kkj ij fufeZr dh tk;sxh rFkk lwph es vf/kd vad izkIr djus dk uke igys j[kk tk;sxkA
¼x½ lfefr vko';drkuqlkj f'k{kk fe=kas dh la[;k dk vkadyu djsaxsA ;g la[;k 1% 40 ds vk/kkj ij f'k{kdksa dh dqy la[;k esa ls dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa dh la[;k dks ?kVkdj fudkyh tk;sxhA rn~uqlkj 101 Nk= la[;k ij 3 rFkk blds mijkur 40 Nk=ksa dh iw.kZ la[;k ij ,d vfrfjDr f'k{kd dh vko';drk dk vkdyu fd;k tk;sxkA
¼?k½ fo|ky; esa dqy j[ks tkus okys f'k{kk fe=ksa esa ls 50 izfr'kr efgyk;sa gksaxhA budk Hkh p;u fcUnq ¼[k½ esa bafxr vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxkA
¼³½ vuqlwfpr tkfr;[email protected] tu tkfr;ksa vU; fiNM+s oxksZ ,oa vU; Jsf.k;ksa es vkj{k.k gsrq izpfyr fu;[email protected]'kksa dk ikyu ;Fkkor lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sxkA
¼p½ xzke f'k{kk lfefr ds lHkkifr o lfefr ds fudV laca/kh dk p;u f'k{kk fe+= ds :i esa ugha fd;k tk;sxkA
7- lafonk dh vof/k& f'k{kk fe= xzke f'k{kk lfefr }kjk izLrko ikfjr dj pkyw 'kSf{kd l= ds fy;s lafonk ij j[kk tk;sxkA tks ebZ ekg ds vfUre fnol dks Lor% lekIr gks tk;sxhA
8- lafonk vof/k dk ekuns;& f'k{kk fe= dks lafonk ij :0 [email protected]&izfrekg fu;r ekuns; ij j[kk tk;sxkA
9- lafonk lekIr djus dh izfdz;k& ¼v½ fdlh Hkh f'k{kk fe= dk dk;Z larks"ktud u gksus dh n'kk esa xzke f'k{kk lfefr] ds nks frgkbZ cgqer ls fyf[kr izLrko ikfjr dj lafonk lekIr dj ldrh gSA xzke f'k{kk lfefr }kjk bl laca/k esa fd;k x;k fu.kZ; vfUre gksxkA
¼c½ lEcfU/kr f'k{kk fe= dks ml ekg dk ekunsg gksxk ftl ekg esa mlds fo:) xzke f'k{kk lfefr }kjk lafonk lekIr djus ds vk'k; dk izLrko ikfjr dj fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxk rFkk bl izdkj gVk;s x;s f'k{kk fe= dks iqu% lsok dk volj iznku ugha fd;k tk;sxkA
9. Undisputedly, the resolution dated 19.5.2007 was unanimously passed by the petitioner, Shiksha Samiti, in which it is recorded that directions were issued to the respondent no.5 on 1.4.2007, 16.4.2007 and 27.4.2007 to make improvement in discharge of her duties and behaviour but she did not adhere to it. She seldom used to come to the school and whenever she came she engaged herself only in talking and did not teach the students. She beats the students. Consequently, there was annoyance amongst the guardians of the students. These facts, by the aforesaid unanimous resolution dated 19.5.2007 the contract of the respondent no.5 for engagement as Shiksha Mitra was terminated in terms of clause 9 of the aforesaid Government Order dated 26.5.1999. The said resolution was not challenged by the respondent no.5 before any Court. Consequently, it attained finality.
10. Unless the aforesaid resolution dated 19.5.2007 is set aside by a competent court, it was not open for the District Magistrate to pass the impugned order directing for payment of honorarium to the respondent no.5 and renewal of her contract of Shiksha Mitra. Thus the impugned order dated 24.6.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
11. In result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 24.6.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, is set aside.
Order Date :- 4.12.2015
vkg
