Allahabad High Court
Saurabh Srivastava & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru Secretary ... on 13 January, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9391 of 2019
Petitioner :- Saurabh Srivastava & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Singh,Ripu Daman Shahi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Srivastava,R.K.S. Suryvanshi
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. R.D. Sahi learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1,2,3 and Mr. R.K. Suryvanshi learned counsel for opposite party No.4 and Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava learned counsel for opposite party No.5.
Petition has been filed assailing order dated 19th March, 2019 whereby financial approval for appointment of petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution in question on ad hoc basis has been withdrawn.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the institution in question, there are 18 posts of Assistant Teachers under the grant-in-aid by the State Government. It is submitted that due to vacancy of 8 posts of Assistant Teachers in the institution, a requisition was sent by the committee of management on 21st April, 2001 to the District Inspector of Schools in order to fill up the vacant post. When no reply was received form the authority concerned, the committee of management issued an advertisement on 10th June, 2004 in pursuance to which, the petitioner, who was qualified to hold the post being holders of M.A., B.Ed. degree, applied for the same. After due process of selection, the petitioners were selected and appointment letters dated 25th June, 2004 were also issued to the petitioners appointing them on ad hoc basis.
Learned counsel submits that upon completion of selection process, the relevant papers pertaining to selection and appointment of petitioners was sent to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 12th August, 2004 for financial approval but when no decision thereupon was taken, the petitioners filed writ petition Nos. 6361 (S/S) of 2005 and 6359 (S/S) of 2005 respectively, which were disposed of vide order dated 17th January, 2006 with the direction that the petitioner would be allowed to the post of Assistant Teacher till regularly selected candidate is available and subject to satisfaction of petitioner's work and conduct, he would be paid regular salary of the post.
When the aforesaid directions were not complied with, the petitioners had filed contempt petitions, in pursuance of which, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 18th March, 2006 granted conditional financial approval to both the petitioners till the joining of selected candidate.
Subsequently the Writ Petition No.-A 26307 of 2010 (Dhruv Narain Singh versus State of U.P. and others) was filed and disposed of by this Court at Allahabad directing the education authorities to verify the sanctioned strength of teachers in the educational institutions and to verify the appointment of teachers functioning therein. The impugned order has been passed in pursuance threof holding that the petitioners have been appointed without following the process indicated in the Intermediate Education Act and beyond the sanctioned strength.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the letter dated 23rd September, 2013 sent by the District Inspector of Schools indicating that instead of 8 sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher, there are actually 18 sanctioned posts of Assistant Teacher out of which 12 teachers have been appointed and are being paid salary. The letter further indicates that as per the student strength in the institution in question, actual strength of Assistant Teachers in the institution in question should be 36. The recommendation was made to the Director of Education to make the consequential amendments regarding sanctioned strength of the Assistant Teachers in the institution in question. As such it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed totally against the material on record clearly indicating the fact that the petitioners were working against vacant sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher.
It is relevant factor that the earlier writ petition of petitioners was disposed of on the basis of judgment and order rendered by this court in the case of Rakesh Chandra Mishra versus State of U.P. and others reported in (2004) Lucknow Civil Decisions 1604. Subsequent thereto, the matter was re-agitated before two Full Benches of this Court and thereafter before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh versus State of U.P. and others, Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016. The said civil appeal was decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 26.8.2020. Paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant and is as follows:-
"11. On having examined the issue, we feel it will be appropriate to direct that the teachers/lectures who are employed at present the TGTs and lecturers would continue to be so employed till the aforesaid process is completed and to the extent the financial benefits are given by the State Government to the institutions, against appointments made in compliance with Section 16-E (sub-section 11) of the Act, the same will also be given to provide succour to the TGT/lecturers."
In view of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is not disputed that the case of petitioners would be governed by the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra).
In view of aforesaid directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (surpa), the impugned order dated 19th March, 2019 is quashed by issuance a writ in the nature of Certiorari and further a writ of Mandamus is issued directing opposite party no.3 i.e. District Inspector of Schools, District Barabanki to take a final decision with regard to financial approval for petitioners in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra). Final order with regard to the same shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.
Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021
prabhat
