Allahabad High Court
Geeta Varma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9209 of 2019
Petitioner :- Geeta Varma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue to respondent no. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a Junior High School in the name of Dr. Khamani Singh Yadav, Junior High School, Akka Dialari, Block-Munda Panday, Moradabad, duly recognized under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and provisions of U.P. Junior High Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of service of teachers) Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1978") is applicable on it. The said institution is receiving grant-in-aid from the State to pay salary to employees including Head Master, Assistant Teachers and Clerk as well as Class VIth employees engaged in Class VIth to VIIIth. He further submits that Deputy Director of Education, 3rd Region, Bareilly vide order dated 7.5.1981 has granted permanent recognition to the institution for imparting education from Class-VIth to VIIIth. Further, vide orders dated 19.01.1987 and 17.03.1987, District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad- respondent no. 3 had granted permission to open additional section in Class-VIth to VIIIth. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.03.1987, Assistant Director of Education (Basic) 12th Region, Moradabad has approved one post of Head Master, 7 posts of Assistant Teacher, 1 post of Clerk and 3 posts of Class -IV employee for Junior High School.
He further submits that as per Government Orders dated 15.9.2014 and 04.11.2015, against 7 sanctioned post of Assistant Teachers, only 4 teachers are working and one post fell vacant due to retirement of one Khoob Singh on 31.03.2017. Earlier, there was a ban on appointment of teachers, but thereafter, respondent no. 4- Manager being appointing authority has sent letter dated 23.04.2018 to respondent no. 3 for prior permission to fill up one vacant post of Assistant Teacher and accordingly, the same was granted by respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 29.09.2018. After obtaining permission, vacancies were advertised in two widely circulated newspapers, namely, Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran dated 16.10.2018. He further submits that vide letter dated 2.11.2018, respondent no. 4 requested to respondent no. 3 to send nominee/ observer for participating in the selection committee as required under Rules 1978. Thereafter, selection committee was constituted having three members and after due selection, petitioner has been selected as Assistant Teacher after securing highest quality point marks amongst other candidates. He further submits that Committee of Management has finally decided to send papers pertaining to selection of petitioner to respondent no. 3 for according approval and accordingly, it was sent vide letter dated 13.11.2018, but till date, respondent no. 3 has not taken any decision in the matter. Thereafter, petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 has sent several reminders to respondent no. 3, but till date, no action has been taken. He further submits that petitioner has joined her post on 28.11.2018 and since then she is working regularly on the said post, but not getting salary.
Lastly, he submits that a suitable direction may be issued to respondent no. 3 to take decision on the proposal of respondent no. 4 i.e. letter dated 13.11.2018 for which learned standing counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 have no objection.
Under such facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the proposal of respondent no. 4 i.e. letter dated 13.11.2018 and pass order strictly in accordance with law maximum within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
It is made clear that Court has not adjudicated the case on merits and is upon the respondent no. 3 to decide the proposal of respondent no. 4 after considering the relevant Rule as well as Government Orders occupying the field.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Arvind
