Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 September, 2017
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43749 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ajeet Pratap Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- R. K. Singh Kaosik
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner claims that he has been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Inter College, Meerganj, Jaunpur (for short, the "institution"), which is a recognised and aided institution. He has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 07th September, 2017 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, the third respondent.
The essential facts of the case are that in the institution six posts of Assistant Teacher fell vacant. The Committee of Management of the institution sent a requisition on 25th August, 2011 to the appropriate authority for regular appointment on the said vacant posts. Since no regular selection was made by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, the Committee of Management of the institution, in view of the fact that the studies of the students were adversely affected, passed a resolution to make short term appointments against those vacancies. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued in two widely circulated newspapers 'Aaj' and 'Pioneer' on 24th August, 2014 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment against six posts. The petitioner, who claims to possess the essential qualification, made an application pursuant to the said advertisement. It is stated that the petitioner was selected and the Committee of Management sent the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for approval on 26th September, 2014.
When no decision was taken thereon, the petitioner preferred Writ-A No. 67331 of 2015 for a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to take decision in the matter. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 16th December, 2015 by issuing a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law.
The District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order dated 07th September, 2017 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that vide order dated 25th January, 1999 the State Government has rescinded the Removal of Difficulties Orders, hence the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and only on this ground alone the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Inspector of Schools has not considered the law laid down by this Court and has rejected the representation of the petitioner without considering the same.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Since no factual determination is required and the only question, which arises in the present case, is whether the Committee of Management has power to make short-term appointment or not, no useful purpose would be subserved by calling response from the authorities concerned. Hence, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
The petitioner has previously preferred a writ petition, being Writ-A No. 67331 of 2015, for a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to take decision on the documents submitted by the Committee of Management of the institution for his approval to the appointment made by it. This Court after referring the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (7) ADJ 179 (FB), has directed the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter in accordance with law in the light of the said Full Bench decision.
It is surprising that the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order has quoted extensively the entire order of this Court passed in the said writ petition but while considering the matter he has not even referred the law laid down by this Court in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) and has not specified the reason that why he has not followed the law laid down in the aforesaid Full Bench decision. From the order impugned the Court is prima facie satisfied that either the District Inspector of Schools has passed the order in most casual way or he is not aware about the legal position that the law laid down by the High Court is binding on all the authorities of the State. It appears that he is living under the impression that he is bound only by the orders of the State Government or the provisions of the law.
The Full Bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) has interpreted all the relevant statutory provisions and held that in spite of the fact that the Removal of Difficulties Orders have been rescinded and under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 there is no provision for appointment on short term vacancies, in such a situation to meet the exigency the Committee of Management can resort to the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In the order passed in the petitioner's earlier writ petition, which has been quoted in the impugned order, this Court has extracted the law laid down by the Full Bench, however, the District Inspector of Schools did not care to look into the order of this Court, which he has quoted in his order. From the cryptic order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, I am satisfied that he has passed the order in most casual way. The impugned order appears to be contemptuous as he has not cared to comply with the law laid down by the Full Bench in spite of the order of the Court dated 16th December, 2015, wherein he was directed to pass the order in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench. The impugned order indicates that the District Inspector of Schools appears to have deliberately ignored the law.
Since this matter is being disposed of without calling counter affidavit from the respondents, the Court does not think it appropriate to take any action against the District Inspector of Schools concerned. However, he is put on notice that in future he should be careful.
For the reasons mentioned above, I find that the impugned order dated 07th September, 2017 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur is wholly unsustainable, hence it is set aside. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur shall pass a fresh order in the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. for taking appropriate action against the concerned District Inspector of Schools after seeking his explanation.
Order Date :- 19.9.2017
SKT/-
