Allahabad High Court
C/M Baba Dev Prakash Madhyamik ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2517 of 2023
Petitioner :- C/M Baba Dev Prakash Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti Through Its Manager And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Ojha,Rabindra Nath Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel.
The case of the writ petitioners is that the petitioners an institution by the name of Baba Dev Prakash Madhyamik Vidyalaya Musa Nagar, Kanpur Dehat which is recognized as a Junior High School wherein the provisions contained under the Basic Education Act, 1973 and the Rules so framed thereunder are applicable. In para 7 of the writ petition it has been averred that there are three sanctioned strength of Class-IV employees and 11 sanctioned posts inclusive of one post of Head Master and 10 posts of Assistant Teachers. According to the writ petitioner, three posts are lying vacant since 2009, 2010 and 2013 and further one post stood vacant on account of the death of the compassionate appointee in the year 2021. It is the case of the writ petitioner that despite the fact that Class-IV employees are required to be recruited to man the post for facilitation of imparting of education but by virtue of the Government Order dated 15.01.2019 the State Government has come up with a policy whereby an absolute restrain has been put for making recruitment in Class-IV post. According to the writ petitioner, the Government Order dated 15.01.2019 had been subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions including Writ- A No. 5418 of 2019 (Committee of Management of Manorama Kanya Junior High School Moradabad and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the said Government Order containing the offending portion of restraining and putting an absolute bar for recruiting Class-IV employees has been set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that a Defective Special Appeal No. 30 of 2022 is pending against the said judgment and other connected matters but there is no interim order operating thus, there is no embargo in not considering the claim of the writ petitioner for making Class-IV appointments. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also invited attention of the Court towards para 18 and 19 of the writ petition so as to further contend that representations have been made on 05.08.2022, 31.08.2022 and 10.11.2022. According to writ petitioner an advertisement was also published on 21.11.2022 for making recruitment of Class-IV post but no action what so ever have been made.
Prayer in the present petition is thus that a suitable direction be issued to the second respondent, District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat to accord consideration to the pending representations of the writ petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has argued that might be the offending portion of the Government Order dated 15.01.2019 has been set aside but intra-court appeal is pending wherein the matter is to be adjudicated. According to him since as per the case of the writ petitioner, he has already represented his cause before the second respondent thus, it would not be fruitful to detain the writ petition on board, however, the writ petition be disposed off requiring the second respondent, District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat to accord consideration to the representation.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with other representation which it has preferred in the past and also in order to substantiate his claim, the relevant document which he proposes to rely upon to get the relief before the second respondent and in case the same is preferred then second respondent shall accord consideration to the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of the production of certified copy of the order. It is further provided that the second respondent shall also in case it requires the writ petitioner to produce certain other documents in order to be satisfied as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to relief or not ask for it.
Needless to point out that this court has not adjudicated the matter on the merits and the same is subject to legal impediment if any.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 15.2.2023
Nisha
