Aditya Vikram Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 25301 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181208
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10771 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Aditya Vikram Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Jain
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Srivastava Iii
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Arvind Srivastava-III, learned counsel who appears for respondent No. 4.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the fourth respondent, Sangram Singh Baghel Inter College, Ahirauli Baghel, Deoria is an institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 stand applicable.

4. The petitioner claims that his father namely, Sri Ranjeet Bahadur Singh since deceased was appointed as a Lecturer (Economics) in Reghuraj Singh Intermediate College, Bahiyari Baghel, Deoria on 07.03.1974 and thereafter he was handed over the charge of Officiating Principal in the year 2013. It is further claimed that the father of the writ petitioner died-in-harness as Officiating Principal of the said institution on 05.03.2016. The writ petitioner further claims that the mother of the writ petitioner namely, Smt. Pushp Lata Singh was working as Assistant Teacher in the primary section of the fourth respondent institution, however, the relationship of the father and the mother of the writ petitioner was discordant resulting to jeopardizing the interest and the tranquility of the family itself. According to the writ petitioner he has one sister. Since the mother of the writ petitioner, Smt. Pushp Lata Singh showered love only in favour of her sister so the writ petitioner claims to be neglected and the post death of his father the writ petitioner was thrown out of the house and the writ petitioner further claims to have started residing in another residential accommodation without there being any support of his mother. The writ petitioner claims to be having relevant qualification besides being adorned with Intermediate, Technical Drawing and Shastri from Sampoornannd Sanskrit University, Varanasi staked his claim for being accorded compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father. The Principal of the fourth respondent institution corresponded with the District Inspector of Schools and thereafter on 29.10.2016 an order is being stated to have been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria according appointment to the writ petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Drawing) in L.T. Grade on compassionate ground. The writ petitioner further claims to have assumed the charge on the said post on 08.11.2016. According to the writ petitioner though he was discharging the duties so entrusted to him to the satisfaction, however, a complaint is stated to have been lodged by Sri Anand Singh who claims to be the resident of Village Ahirauli Baghel, Deoria and it is further alleged that he has criminal antecedents and he started blackmailing the writ petitioner and when the writ petitioner did not succumb to the pressure so exerted by the complainant then he started pursuing the complaint in pursuance thereof the District Inspector of Schools, on the complaint of Sri Anand Singh sought clarification from the Manager of the institution in question and according to the writ petitioner the Manager of the institution in question submitted his reply/report on 16.07.2018 before the Associate Inspector of Schools/Inquiry Officer and the petitioner also tendered his reply, however, the matter did not end here the same travelled to the office of the Lokayukta wherein the complaint was taken cognizance and the Additional Director of Education was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who after conducting inquiry submitted his report on 01.03.2019 before the Lokayukta questioning the appointment of the writ petitioner as an Assistant Teacher being illegal. The writ petitioner further claims that the aforesaid inquiry report and the proceedings culminating into the same dated 01.03.2019 is an ex parte one without associating the writ petitioner and thereafter according to the writ petitioner an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was also filed by the complainant for lodging of the F.I.R. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which according to the writ petitioner came to be rejected, however, an order has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools on the basis of the report dated 03.12.2021 on 04.12.2021 wherein the appointment of the writ petition on compassionate ground was sought to be questioned on the premise that at the time when the writ petitioner had claimed compassionate appointment his mother was already employed as a Teacher in primary section attached to the fourth respondent institution. The salary of the writ petitioner was stopped by virtue of an order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria. The writ petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 04.12.2021 preferred writ petition no, 692 of 2023 (Aditya Vikram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others) which came to be disposed of on 20.01.2023 directing the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria to consider the representation of the claim of the writ petitioner, however, since the order was not complied with the writ petitioner preferred contempt proceedings and thereafter according to the writ petitioner, now the order impugned has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria dated 19.06.2023.

5. Questioning the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria as well as the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by it and for a direction to pay salary on the post of L.T (Drawing) teacher in the institution in question, the writ petitioner is filed the present writ petition.

6. The writ petition was entertained by this Court on 12.07.2023 while passing the following orders.-

"Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order impugned in the writ petition dated 19.6.2023 passed by the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Deoria proceeds on misconception of facts and law particularly in view of the fact that the said order records following grounds in negating the claim of the writ petitioner (a) despite the fact that the mother of the writ petitioner was already a teacher in a primary section of the Intermediate College but the said fact was not disclosed before explaining appointment (b) on the basis of the complaint made before the Lokayukt and the pendency of the same would not cloth the writ petitioner for grant of salary and the salary should be stopped till the disposal of the complaint.

It is further the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the provisions contained under Chapter-III Regulations 101 to 107 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 2021 the invocation of the provisions contained under the U.P. Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 was totally misconceived.

Sri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel on the other hand submits that might be the 1974 Rules may not apply but the principles as enshrined therein stands applied as in the case of determination of the fact as to whether a dependent is entitled to be accorded compassionate appointment in the wake of the fact that other persons sailing on the same boat who are dependent then the comparative analysis is to be done and once a crucial fact has not been disclosed that dis-entitles the writ petitioner of any benefit in this regard.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to the fourth respondent.

Steps to be taken within three days by both the ways.

Affidavit of compliance be filed before the next date fixed.

Learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the respondent no.4 shall file their affidavit within two weeks. Three days time is allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

A counter affidavit should also disclose the fact as to whether on the date of the consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment there was other claims also or not.

Put up this case on 1.8.2023 as fresh."

7. Response was sought and notices were issued to the fourth respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 sworn by Associate Director of Schools, Deoria dated 07.08.2023 to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed and a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent.

8. Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that since the counter of the fourth respondent supports him so he does not propose to file any response/rejoinder to the same.

9. Sri Jain while assailing the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and the order dated 04.12.2021 has sought to argue that the impugned orders cannot be sustained for even a single moment particularly in view of the fact that the said orders have been based upon the alleged ex parte inquiry report of the Additional Director of Education dated 01.03.2019 as the entire proceedings have been initiated in pursuance of the directions of the Lokayukta who had no say in the matter. According to him had the inputs being sought to be injected by virtue of the inquiry report dated 01.03.2019 of the Additional Director of Education being confronted to the writ petitioner the writ petitioner would have amply demonstrated that there was no occasion to pass the order impugned. He further seeks to submit that in the order impugned the principles of the U.P. Government Servant Dying-In-Harness Rules, 1974 has been sought to be relied upon and made a basis to negate the claim of the writ petitioner as the same is patently misconceived besides being out of context particularly in view of the fact that there exists specific provision under Regulation 103 to 107 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which governs the grant of compassionate appointment. He further submits that merely because the mother of the writ petitioner was working as Teacher in the attached primary section would not be a ground to denude the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment as there is no specific embargo contained in the regulations strictly applicable in the institution in question.

10. Sri Jain seeks to rely upon the judgment in the case of Vikas Adiwal Writ A No. 34504 of 2015 decided on 02.05.2023 so as to further contend that the criteria for grant of compassionate appointment vis-a-vis the provisions contained under 1974 rules will have no application in the matters of appointment in the present case in hand which relates to specific enactment under the Regulations of the 1921 Act. Sri Jain has further argued that though the said impugned order on one hand seeks to rely upon certain inputs which were never confronted, however, the same does not annul or cancel the appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground but it seeks to withhold the salary to the writ petitioner till the final decision to be taken by the Lokayukta itself. He submits that once Lokayukta has not authority under law to intervene in the said matter then in the circumstances the entire proceedings right from the very inception are vitiated. Sri Jain further submits that the order in question be set aside the matter be remitted for fresh decision after putting to the writ petitioner to notice while confronting him with all the inputs sought to be generated and injected.

11. Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that thought the proceedings as apparent from the impugned order stands emanated from the order of the Lokayukta and also the report of the Additional Director of Education Dated 01.03.2019 but the facts of the case itself denude the writ petitioner from any benefit particularly when as per the application form to be submitted in the format which have been appended as Annexure 2 at page 15 there was a specific column under the item 13 whereby the applicant had to disclose the name of the family member their relationship, their gender and the fact as to whether they were employed or not. According to learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel the writ petitioner against the name of his mother had marked 'X' meaning thereby a fraud had been played in that regard in the light of the fact that though the mother of the writ petitioner was already employed but the writ petitioner concealed the said fact.

12. According to learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel the writ petitioner had also submitted an affidavit Annexure 3 at page 17 of the paper book wherein a specific statement on oath had been made that nobody in his family was employed. Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for the official respondents has also invited the attention of the Court towards Annexure 6 at page 20 being a report dated 01.03.2019 of the Inquiry Officer Additional Director of Education so as to contend that even in fact the fourth respondent institution is an institution which is being managed by the close relative of the writ petitioner and the kith and kin of the writ petitioner are the office bearer and in this the said institution the mother of the writ petitioner is also working in the attached primary section and everything has been tailored in such a manner so as to give room to the writ petitioner to be accorded appointment concealing material facts going into the root of the matter. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the inquiry report dated 01.03.2019 as referred to above was not confronted to the writ petitioner.

13. Sri Rahul Jain, in rejoinder has sought to submit that the entire exercise undertaken stands vitiated not only in violation of principles of natural justice but also the fact that the writ petitioner is fully eligible and qualified in all respects and according to him once there is no specific bar and he is armed with the judgment in the case of Vikas Adiwal (supra) then the said ground is not available. Sri Arvind Srivastava-III who appears for the fourth respondent supports the case of the writ petitioner.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

15. Undisputedly, the fourth respondent institution is recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 stand applicable.

16. It is also not in dispute that the father of the writ petitioner was a Teacher and the mother was also teaching in the institution in question. The bone of contention between the parties is whether the writ petitioner was liable to be accorded compassionate appointment in the wake of the fact that his mother was already employed and teaching in the primary attached institution. Though Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that there is no specific bar to denude not to grant compassionate appointment in those contingencies wherein one of the family members is already employed and he seeks to rely upon the judgment of Vikas Adiwal (supra), however, according to Sri Shahi, who appears for the State respondent once an application itself provided for giving details of a particular information and the same has not been submitted and rather not disclosed and suppressed then it amounts to loss of confidence then the basic substratum stands eroded, he submits that the judgment in question would come later on first the writ petitioner has to explain his conduct.

17. A pointed query was raised upon Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi pre-recess as to whether the writ petitioner was confronted with the report dated 01.03.2019 of the Additional Director of Education and whether the appointment of the writ petitioner has been cancelled or not and a specific query was also made as to whether proceedings were maintainable at the behest of the Lokayukta or not.

18. To such a submission, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi took time to address the same post recess. The matter has been taken post recess and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has made a statement at bar that only till date order has been passed for withholding of salary and there is no final order with regard to a decision to be arrived for cancellation of the appointment or not, he further submits on instructions that the order suffers from various short-comings including non-furnishing of the copy of the report dated 01.03.2019 of the Additional Director of Education. He, however, submits that a final order would be passed after putting the writ petitioner to notice regarding the fact as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the benefit of compassionate to the same or not. He further submits, on instructions, that the findings recorded in this order shall not influence while passing a fresh order in that regard and an independent exercise will be taken in that regard.

19. In normal circumstances this Court would have undertaken the task of deciding the matter on merits but since there are procedural irregularities as noticed above, thus, as rightly pointed out by Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel this Court is denuding itself from going into the merits of the matter while deciding the writ petition in the following manner; (a) the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria shall be treated to be a show cause notice; (b) the District Inspector of Schools shall fix on 09.10.2023 as the date; (c) the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent shall appear before the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools on 09.10.2023 submit their versions and in case, some document is required they shall take a copy of the same; (d) on that date version shall be exchanged between the parties; (e) hearing be done in the third week of October, 2023; (f) orders be passed within a period of 15 days therefrom; (g) since the parties are represented through their counsels, thus, there is no need to give any further notice to them.

20. As the order dated 19.06.2023 and 04.12.2021 only stops the salary of the writ petitioner, thus, final opinion is to be arrived and decision is to be taken within the time stipulated in that regard in strict compliance of the provisions of law as existing on the land in question.

21. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 19.9.2023

Rajesh