Anuj Trivedi vs State Of U.P. And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 3860 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

				AFR
 
Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29228 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Anuj Trivedi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshetresh Chandra Shukla,Dharmendra Kr.Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,Satyendra Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

(Oral)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to permit the petitioner to join as Trained Graduate Teacher in Science/Math under General Category in Shri Man Singh Inter College, Alipur Jeeta, Kaushambi or in the alternative to let the petitioner join in another College, wherever the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Science/Math under General Category is vacant. 

2. The case of petitioner is that in response to a requisition sent by the Committee of Management, Respondent No. 5, the District Inspector of Schools on 17.04.2008 had requested the Respondent No. 4, the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board for conducting a selection.  The Service Selection Board thereafter advertised the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Science/Math in the Secondary School, namely Shri Man Singh Inter College, Aleepur Jeeta, Kaushambi and after facing the selection process the petitioner was selected and his name was placed at serial No. 1 in the panel sent by the Secondary Education Service Selection Board.  The District Inspector of Schools on 13.12.2010 wrote to the Management of the Institution for permitting the petitioner to join on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Science. 

3. The petitioner submitted his joining report before the Committee of Management on 28.12.2010 but instead of permitting the petitioner to join, the Management of the Institution in question wrote to the Respondent No. 3, District Inspector of Schools, on 18.01.2011 that there was no vacant post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Science under the General Category.  After receiving the letter dated 18.01.2011, the District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter to the Management of the Institution in question on 03.02.2011asking for explanation as to how after sending the requisition in 2007 on the basis of which selection was held, the Management could now dispute that no post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Science under General Category was vacant in the Institution?

4. Again, on 03.03.2011 the District Inspector of Schools called for an explanation from the Management.  The Management, however, did not allow the petitioner to join and aggrieved with the action of the Management, the petitioner made a representation to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board on 10.03.2011 and again wrote to the District Inspector of Schools and Joint Director of Education, Allahabad on 13.04.2011 for permitting the petitioner to join as Trained Graduate Teacher in Science either in the College mentioned in his Appointment Letter, or in any other College where there was a vacancy. 

5. From a perusal of the correspondences undertaken by the petitioner and the District Inspector of Schools with the Management of the Institution in question, it is evident that only because of intransigence of the Management of the Institution, the petitioner is being made to run from pillar to post. The District Inspector of Schools although has called for an explanation from the Management, but has not proceeded further as per the requirement under the Act of 1982 and Rules framed thereunder. 

6. The District Inspector of Schools was duty bound under Section 17 of the Act of 1982 to proceed further with the matter wherein it has been provided as under:-

"17. Inquiry by Director. - (1) Where any person is entitled to be appointed as a teacher in any institution in accordance with [Chapter II], but he is not so appointed by the management within the time provided therefor, he may apply to the Director or any officer authorised by him for a direction under subsection (2).

(2) [As far as may be within one month from the date of receipt] of an application under sub-section (1), the Director or the officer authorised by him may hold an inquiry, and if he is satisfied that the management has failed to appoint the applicant as a teacher, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he may, by order, direct -

(a) the management to appoint the applicant as a teacher forthwith, and to pay him salary from the date specified in the order; and

(b) the Head of the Institution concerned to take work from him as a teacher."

7. Shri A.K. Yadav appearing for the Service Selection Board has informed this Court that power has been delegated in this regard and District Inspector of Schools is competent enough to recommend against the Management of the Institution in question.  He has referred to the Rules of 1998 more specifically Rule 13 which is quoted as under:-

"R.13. Intimation of names of selected candidates. -  (1) The Inspector shall within 10 days of the receipt of the panel and the allocation of institution under Rule 12,-

(i) notify it on the notice board of his office;

(ii) intimate the name of selected candidate to the Management of the institution which has notified the vacancy, with the direction that, on authorization under resolution of the management, an order or appointment in the pro forma given in Appendix "E" be issued to the candidate by registered post within 15 days of the receipt of the order or within such extended time, as may be allowed to him by the management, and also intimating him that on his failure to join within the specified time, his appointment will be liable to be cancelled;

(iii) send an intimation to the candidate, referred to in clause (ii), with the direction to report to the Manager within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of appointment by him from the Manager or within such extended time as may be allowed to him, by the Management.

(2) The Management shall comply with the directions, given under sub-rule (1) and report compliance thereof to the Board through the Inspector.

(3) Where the candidate, referred to in sub-rule (1) fails to join the post within the time allowed in the letter of appointment or within such extended time as the Management may allow in this behalf or where such candidate is otherwise not available for appointment, the Inspector may, on the request of the Management, intimate for fresh name or names standing next in order of merit on the panel, under intimation to the Joint Director and the Board, and the provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply.

(4) The Joint Director shall monitor and ensure that the candidates selected by the Board joins the institution in the specified time and for this purpose, he may issue such direction to the Inspector he thinks proper.

(5) Where a candidate selected by the Board could not join in an allocated institution due to non-availability of vacancy or for any other reason, the District Inspector of School shall recommend to the Board for the adjustment of such candidate against any other vacancy notified to the Board in any other institution. On receipt of the recommendation of the District Inspector of School the Board shall allocate such candidate to another institution in a vacancy notified to the Board."

8. Under the Rules of 1998 it has been specifically provided that the Joint Director of Education under sub-clause -(4) shall monitor and ensure that the candidate selected by the Board joins the Institution in the specified time and for this purpose, he may issue such direction to the Inspector he thinks proper. The District Inspector of Schools has also been given the power to recommend to the Board for adjustment of such candidate against any other vacancy notified by the Board in any other Institution.  In this case, neither the Joint Director has acted nor the DIOS has performed his duty.  

9. It has been clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Service Selection Board will not become functus offitio in a Special Leave Petition filed by the Board against an order passed by the Division Bench in so far as the adjustment of a selected candidate is concerned. The Joint Director of Education and the DIOS having failed to perform their duty, first in finding out whether the Institution in question is objecting to the appointment of the petitioner for any valid reason and thereafter making necessary recommendation either for punitive action against the Management or for adjustment of the candidate in question in any other College, the petitioner is being made to suffer.

10. The learned Standing Counsel Shri Anil Kant Tripathi has pointed out from the counter affidavit that the District Inspector of Schools has repeatedly asked the Management of the Institution to indicate as to who has been appointed in the vacancy that was intimated in his office in year 2007 and which was sent for requisition and selection. The Management of the Institution in question is not responding to the letters of the DIOS. The DIOS is free to take action as required under law in such a case.

11. It is, therefore, directed the District Inspector of Schools shall first ascertain the correct position with regard to the requisition sent by the Management, and whether there is any valid reason for the Committee of Management to refuse the petitioner's joining and in case there is no such valid reason, then, he shall proceed as required under law and make recommendation for punitive action against the Management and for adjustment of the petitioner in any other institution. 

12. The entire exercise shall be completed by the District Inspector of Schools within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 

13. The Joint Director of Education has not been  arrayed as a party in this writ petition. The petitioner is permitted to array the Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad as a party today itself.  The Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad is directed to ensure that the mandate of the statute  is carried out and the petitioner who is a selected candidate is not allow to suffer any further.

14. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

Order Date :- 31.8.2017

LBY