Allahabad High Court
Ranjana Devi And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 20 June, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 11.05.2022
Delivered on 20.06.2022
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6321 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ranjana Devi And 10 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Mishra,Lallan Prasad Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
This petition has been filed praying for quashing of impugned order dated 17.12.2015 passed by respondent no.1, Secretary, Department of Education (Secondary) U.P. Govt., Lucknow. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to pay arrears of salary of the petitioners from the date of appointment and their month to month salary forthwith.
The petitioners claim that Adarsh Sri Vasudev Sanskrit Pathshala, District Jaunpur is a post graduate college under the grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the petitioners are working in the Primary Section of the aforesaid institution, which is recognized by Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidalay, Varanasi.
There is one committee of management which runs the Primary Section as well as the Higher Section. The petitioners were duly appointed on various posts between 1985 to 1996 but they are not getting salary when the similarly situated teachers in other institutions are getting salary. With regard to redressal of their grievance petitioners approached this court earlier by way of Writ Petition No. 3180 of 1999, which was disposed of with the direction that the facts of this case are covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 945. The aforesaid judgment of this court was subjected to Special Appeal No.490 of 2005, which was disposed of in terms of judgement passed in Special Appeal No.531 of 2005, State of U.P. and another Vs. Tarkeshwar Nath Singh and others.
In the case of Tarkeshwar Nath Singh and others (supra) this court made following observations in its order dated 23.03.2015 :
"So far as claim of the petitioners are that they are entitled for the salary similar to the teachers of the High School and Intermediate College under 1978 Act is concerned, issue is no more res integra. It is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court referred hereinabove. Therefore, the view of learned Single Judge is liable to be affirmed. However, a question whether the petitioners in the writ petitions are validly appointed teachers, has not been adjudicated at any stage. Therefore, we direct the authority concerned to examine the appointment of the petitioners and in case appointments of the petitioners are found to be in accordance to the law, the salary may be paid and in case if the authority concerned may arrive to the conclusion after giving opportunity to the hearing to the petitioners that they are not legally appointed, a reasoned order may be passed in this regard and in such circumstances, the petitioners may not be entitled for the salary in accordance to the law laid down by the Court."
In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this court, impugned order has been passed wherein it has been stated that 11 teachers were found in the attendance register of the institution. There was no post creation order for appointments of such teachers. In the appointment of teachers their qualifications were ignored, in the selection process the rules of reservation were not followed. The appointments of the teachers were not approved by the competent authority as the Management could not produce any documents regarding land and building of the institution. The number of students was shown by way exaggeration. The provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 have not been complied in their appointments. In the statute of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidalay, Varanasi there is no provisions of attachment of Primary Section and therefore, the direction for payment of salary to the teachers cannot be passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings recorded in the impugned order are absolutely incorrect. He has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others, (2014) 9 SCC 692, the primary section of the institution shall be considered to be integral part of the institution and the teachers would be entitled to get salary from the State fund. They are getting only Rs.300/- per month from the resources of the institution. Primary section of the institution was granted recognition by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur vide letter No.235/38/62-63 dated 23.08.1962. The finding that the provisions of Intermediate Education Act were not followed in the appointment of the teachers in the Primary Section is perverse since Intermediate Education Act does not applies to the primary section. Since the primary section was not in the grant-in-aid list, as such there was no necessity of approval of the vacancy from the Competent Authority. The procedure for selection and appointments of teachers was duly observed. The primary section has got its own landed property and accommodation thereon which is evident in the report of District Inspector of Schools.
Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the representation of the petitioners have been considered by respondent no.1 by way reasoned order, which is correct. It has further been submitted that there is no provision in the statute of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidalay, Varanasi, regarding affiliation of primary section to the University. Petitioners are not entitled to any payment of salary.
After hearing rival contentions, this Court finds that the finding of the impugned order have been disputed by the petitioners and material in support of their contentions have been brought on record of the writ petition. The factual dispute regarding the validity of selections and appointments, eligibility of the teachers appointed and approval of their appointments cannot be decided by this court. It requires meticulous scrutiny of the documents which can be done by respondents.
The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to produce the documents regarding their selection, appointments, confirmation, etc., before respondent no.1 within a period of six weeks and the same shall be examined by respondent no.1 and he shall pass appropriate orders regarding selection and validity of appointments of the petitioners and their right to salary for the post. The Committee of Management of the institution shall also be heard with regard to the ownership of land and building of the institution and its stand regarding entitlement to payment of salary of the petitioners and thereafter appropriate order shall be passed by respondent no.1within period of six weeks from today.
The writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.06.2022
SS
