Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Longson And Another vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 25 April, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 239 of 2023
Appellant :- Sanjay Longson And Another
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Om Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the writ petitioners/appellants for grant of financial approval, for appointment to the post of Assistant Physical Training Teacher and Assistant Social Science Teacher. Both the petitioners claim that they were duly appointed by the Committee of Management of the institution concerned on publication of vacancies by adopting due process of selection pursuant to the retirement of two Assistant Teachers in the institution concerned. The petitioners had applied against the advertisement dated 17.06.2011 and were duly recommended for direct recruitment against the aforesaid post.
The order dated 18.05.2013 had been passed rejecting the financial approval to the appointment in question on the premise that out of 33 sanctioned post in the institution concerned, 29 Teachers were working corresponding to the strength of the students in the institution, 3 teachers in Social Science and one teacher in Physical Training were sufficient who were rendering their services in the institution concerned. No plausible objection could be taken to this stand of the respondents where exception is taken to the appointment of the petitioners to the aforesaid post. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that prior approval was taken for advertisement of vacancy and as such financial approval cannot be refused on the premise of the teachers' working strength vis-a-vis strength of the students.
Reliance is further placed on the decision in Writ A No. 14836 of 2016 (Arjun Singh Rathor Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 16.11.2019 to assert that the Regional Committee had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the petitioners and the competent authority was District Inspector of Schools.
We find fallacy in both the abovestated arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants herein, for the reason that there is nothing on record which would indicate that the petitioner's appointment was within the sanctioned post of teachers in the subjects in question, namely, Social Science and Physical Training. Further, the claim of the petitioners that the Regional Committee was not competent to decide the matter is found to be baseless for the reason that the matter was referred by the District Inspector of Schools to the Regional Committee for taking decision in view of the contrary opinion drawn by him. The objection raised in regard to the jurisdiction of the Regional Committee to take decision in the matter is found to be highly technical.
A perusal of the order impugned at page '52' of the paper book indicates that the Regional Committee met on 15.05.2013 to deal with the matter on receipt of the letter of the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi dated 01.01.2013 wherein objection had been taken in the matter of financial approval to the appointment of the petitioners herein. The order impugned further records that as per the Government Order dated 09.08.1999, on the strength of students for classes IXth to Xth, only two sections were permitted in class IXth and 3 sections in class Xth. The institution in question was seeking approval for additional teachers in the subjects Social Science and Physical Training, which was not granted looking to the strength of the students as assessed in the order impugned.
No infirmity, therefore, can be attached to the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits.
Order Date :- 25.4.2023
Rajesh
