Allahabad High Court
C/M Shiraze Hind Inter College ... vs Sri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Joint ... on 27 July, 2021
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1296 of 2021
Applicant :- C/M Shiraze Hind Inter College Murki District Jaunpur
Opposite Party :- Sri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Joint Director Of Education
Counsel for Applicant :- Raees Ahamad,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rajnish Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 22.08.2017 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36868 of 2017 (C/M Shiraze Hind Inter College and another Vs. State of U.P. and others). The aforesaid order is quoted below:-
"The Committee of Management an Intermediate College, namely, Shiraze Hind Inter College, Murki, Kerakat, Jaunpur (for short, "the Institution") has instituted this writ petition challenging the order of the Director of Education (Secondary) 26/27.7.2017 whereby he has rejected the claim of salary of one Siyaram Yadav, Assistant Teacher but in the same order he has also recorded a finding that in the Institution there are only 15 sanctioned posts and not 21 posts as claimed by the Committee of Management. A further direction has been issued to the District Inspector of Schools to send a proposal to reduce the strength of staff of the Institution from 21 to 15.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in pursuance of the order of this Court in the case of Dhruv Narain Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 26307 of 2010, a Five-Member Committee was constituted which has found that the strength of the staff in the Institution is 21. A copy of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 17.7.2003 is on the record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
It is also contended that in Special Appeal No. 614 of 2012, Siya Ram Yadav v. The DIOS and others, a clear direction was issued to the Director of Education (Secondary) to record finding with regard to strength of staff of the Institution but the Director has not adverted to the said issue in correct perspective and has recorded contradictory findings.
My attention has been drawn to the comments sent to the Director by the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi who has mentioned that the letter dated 18.5.1987 is mentioned in the dispatch register and the original order is in possession of the Committee of Management.
During the course of hearing, learned Senior Advocate Sri Ashok Khare appearing for the petitioners has produced the said letter which indicates that 21 posts are sanctioned in the Institution.
Sri Rahul Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for one of the Members of the Society who is not party in the writ petition nor he has filed any impleadment application, has been heard at length. He has stated that the document produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is fabricated document.
He has also raised a number of arguments to demonstrate that the Five-Member Committee constituted in terms of the judgment in Dhruv Narain (supra) has wrongly determined the strength of staff as 21 in place of 15. The Committee has incorrectly recorded a finding that the strength of teaching and non-teaching staff is 21.
I find that the Five-Member Committee has determined 21 posts in the Institution and the Director of Education has not adverted to this issue in spite of the directions of this Court. Neither the strength of the staff or various other factors which have to be taken into consideration for recording a finding with regard to sanctioned strength of the teaching and non-teaching staff, have been adverted to by the Director.
Matter needs consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State functionaries. He may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
List immediately after expiry of the said period.
Sri Rahul Mishra, learned Advocate who is representing one of the Members of the Society is permitted to file an impleadment application.
Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 26/27.7.2017 insofar as the petitioners are concerned, shall remain stayed. However, it will be open to the respondents to adopt appropriate proceedings to modify / recall of the order dated 29.5.2013, whereby the strength of the staff has been determined as 21, following the procedure under the law."
Today when the matter is taken up, it is informed by Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party that affidavit of compliance has already been filed and the order of the writ court has been complied with by passing order dated 06.04.2021, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the compliance affidavit and prays that the present contempt application becomes infracutous.
In this view of the matter, no further cause of action would remain survived and the present application becomes infractuous.
Accordingly, the present contempt application is dismissed as infractuous.
In case, the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision of the opposite party, he has liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021
saqlain
