Allahabad High Court
Abdullah vs State Of U.P Thru. The Secy. ... on 4 May, 2016
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?AFR
Court No. - 10
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9572 of 2016
Petitioner :- Abdullah
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. The Secy. Secondary Eud. Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner herein claims to have been appointed on Group 'C' post in the respondent institution and thereafter his papers were sent to the District inspector of Schools for approval under Section 16FF(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1921') who in turn sent the same to the Joint Director who approved his selection vide order dated 31.03.2015 and sent back the matter to the District Inspector of Schools.
The contention of the petitioner is that he is being paid salary only w.e.f. 12.05.2015 consequent to a consequential order passed by the District Inspector of Schools after approval of the selection by the Joint Director. He claims salary from the date of his initial joining w.e.f. 13.08.2014 in pursuance to the appointment letter dated 11.08.2014 issued by the management.
Section 16FF(3) of the Act, 1921 reads as under:-
"16FF(3) No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless--
(a) in the case of the Head of Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education; and
(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector."
On a bare reading of this provision it is apparent that approval to be sought is of the selection and no person selected under this section shall be appointed unless in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector meaning thereby the proposal of appointment based on such selection is approved by the Inspector, therefore, the approval contemplated therein is a prior approval.
In the present case the approval has been granted by the Joint Director on 31.03.2015, therefore, the appointment order could only be issued on a date subsequent to such approval instead the appointment letter of the petitioner had already been issued on 11.08.2014, therefore, considering the provision of Section 16FF (3) the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary w.e.f. 11.08.2014 is not tenable in the eyes of law. The claim at best can be sustained w.e.f. 31.03.2015 which can be treated as the date of his appointment and not from any other date.
Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment rendered in the case of Shashi Kant Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in [1992 E.S.C. 544 (All)] is misconceived for the that the said judgment does not refer to the provision as contained in Section 16FF (3) of the Act, 1921, therefore, it is not a binding precedent. Moreover the judgment is based on the facts of the said case and does not lay down any principle of law.
In view of the above, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be paid salary w.e.f. 31.03.2015 and the impugned order dated 12.05.2015 shall stand modified to that extent.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 4.5.2016
Vijay (Rajan Roy, J)
