Allahabad High Court
Madan Kumar Bansal vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 431 of 2021
Appellant :- Madan Kumar Bansal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Srivastava
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
By this appeal, challenge is made to the judgment dated 01.02.2021 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 16.02.2016 was dismissed.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge the order of appointment of private respondents. It was alleged that appointments were made by applying the provisions of the minority institutions. The minority status to the institution was challenged and writ petition therein was allowed. The minority status did not continue, thus selection of the teachers by applying section-16 FF of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 no more remained legal, in fact, for the other institution than that of minority, section-16 FF of the Act of 1921 applies.
The approval of the order of appointment was granted by the competent authority subject to final outcome of the pending writ petition challenging the minority status to the educational institution. The writ petition having allowed therein, the order of approval of the appointment should not have continued.
Learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that at the time when appointment was given to the teachers, the institution was having minority status. If subsequently a judgment was given, it cannot affect the appointments made earlier to the judgment. It is ignoring the fact that approval of the appointment of the private respondents was subject to final outcome of the writ petition to challenge minority status of the institution. Prayer is accordingly to cause interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The facts, which are not in dispute are that appointment of the teachers questioned by the petitioner are of the year 2011 whereas the judgment in regard to the minority status of the institution is of the year 2015 i.e. four years subsequent to the appointment. The appointment of the teachers challenged herein was approved by District Inspector of Schools. It is no doubt that it was made subject to final outcome of the petition challenging the minority status of the educational institution. The fact however remains as to whether subsequent judgment of the writ petition for challenge to the minority status would affect the appointment of the private respondents duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools. That is one part of the question to be decided by this Court but prior to it, the issue of locus of the petitioner has been raised by the side opposite. It is submitted that petitioner has not filed a Writ of Quo Warranto rather it would not have been maintainable against the management committee of a private institution. The petitioner was not even one of the applicant to challenge the selection of others. The issue of locus is relevant as the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the private respondents on the post of teacher.
Learned counsel for the appellant has made reference of the judgment in the case of 'Suraj Bhan, Manager, C/M, Ram Ratan Intermediate College vs. Dr. Madan Kumar Bansal' 2015 SCC Online All 9485. There, a finding has been recorded about the locus of the petitioner to maintain the said writ petition. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the Division Bench applies to the facts of this case as well.
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties to examine the issue of locus.
It is not in dispute that the writ petition has been filed to challenge the order of appointment of the teachers. The petitioner could not show his locus for the challenge. The issue of locus has been contested in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Suraj Bhan (supra).
We have gone through the judgment therein which was on a petition to challenge the minority status of the institution. The petitioner was said to be a life member of the General Body at that time. The Division Bench accordingly made observation about the locus of the petitioner for challenge to the minority status of the institution. The finding in the case of Suraj Bhan (supra) has no bearing in the present case. The petitioner/appellant herein has not challenged the minority status of the institution but appointment of the teachers. The locus standi for challenge to the minority status of the institution was examined earlier by the Division Bench taking petitioner to be life member, thus his grievance against the minority status of the institution was examined. In the present matter, the petitioner has not disclosed himself to be life member of the General Body and otherwise it would not have been material for challenge to the appointment of the teachers. Learned counsel for the appellant was yet asked to make a statement that petitioner/appellant is a life member of the General Body even now because judgment in the case of Suraj Bhan (supra) make a reference about expulsion of the petitioner from the General Body due to his involvement in anti-institutional activities. A statement has not been made. There is no material to show how the petitioner has grievance against the appointment of teachers. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that petitioner has no locus to maintain the writ petition for challenge to the order of appointment of private respondents.
Since we do not find locus of the petitioner to challenge the order of appointment of the individual, the other issues regarding the approval of the District Inspector of Schools and other related issues are not required to be addressed. Though, learned Single Judge found due approval of the appointment orders at the stage when the educational institution was having minority status. One subsequent judgment in regard to the minority status would not effect the appointments made earlier. It is true that the District Inspector of Schools gave approval of orders subject to the outcome of the writ petition but it may be in reference to the minority status of the institution and in any case, we do not find locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition so as the appeal.
Accordingly, we find no reason to cause interference in the finding of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021
Madhurima
(Ajai Tyagi, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, ACJ)
