Smt. Usha Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 5 Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 131 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Usha Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 5 Ors on 3 January, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:959
 
Court No. - 7							Reserved
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52753 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Usha Singh Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. H.N. Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
 

1. Heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. The petitioner claims that she was appointed an Assistant Teacher in the C.T. Grade in the institution, now known as Rashtriya Samiti Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Firozabad, way back on 29.09.1977. The institution was then known as the Rashtriya Shramik Vidyalaya Junior High School, Madhvendra Nagar, Firozabad, Agra. The institution aforesaid, wherever referred to hereinafter while a Junior High School, shall be called 'the Junior High School'; wherever it is referred to after its up-gradation to an intermediate institution, shall be called 'the Institution'.

3. The Institution was established as a Primary School on 30.06.1977 and granted temporary recognition as a Junior High School. The recognition was confirmed on 06.06.1980. The Junior High School was permanently recognized by the Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra. The Junior High School was upgraded and recognized as a High School on 13.07.1984. It remained all along unaided until the year 1998-99, when it was extended the government grant-in-aid. The petitioner says that she has earned an M.A. Degree in Psychology in the year 1976 and secured a B.Ed. Degree in the year 1977. Her appointment in the C.T. Grade with the Junior High School was made against a permanent vacancy in accordance with law and the petitioner was informed by the Management that her papers were submitted to the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad for approval. It is pleaded by the petitioner that she was appointed as the Officiating Headmistress of the Junior High School on 01.03.1980 and her signatures were attested. She has appended a document as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition showing the attestation of her signatures as the Officiating Headmistress of the Institution.

4. There is much issue between parties in this case, particularly, the petitioner on one hand and the education Authorities on the other, if at all the petitioner was appointed an Assistant Teacher with the Institution, and if upon the extension of grant-in-aid, the petitioner is entitled to salary borne on State grant. This is not the first time that the petitioner has come to Court to enforce her rights. The issue fell for adjudication of this Court in earlier writ petitions, which went upto the Division Bench in Special Appeal, to all of which, allusion shall shortly be made. It appears that while officiating as the Headmistress of the Junior High School, the petitioner was taken ill and proceeded on medical leave w.e.f. 02.04.1982. She submitted her joining report to the Institution on 25.09.1986. This was a time much before the Institution was taken on grant-in-aid. There is not much issue about this matter involved in the present writ petition.

5. The petitioner says that she was allowed to join and has given various instances when she was appointed an examiner by the Additional Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education. She has also referred to her acts done as the officiating Principal of the Junior High School, like issuing transfer certificates on behalf of the Junior High School. The trouble for the petitioner began in the year 1989, when she says that for no reason, she was restrained from discharging her duties by the Institution, then a High School. She filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5110 of 1989 for appropriate relief. This Court issued an interim mandamus on 17.05.1989, directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner, which she was entitled to before up-gradation of the Institution, as and when it fell due, within six weeks or show cause.

6. The petitioner says that in compliance with the interim mandamus aforesaid, the Manager of the Institution accepted her joining report on 02.07.1992, regularizing her services. By the averment about regularization in Paragraph No.18 of the writ petition, what this Court understands is that the petitioner asserts that her absence from duty on account of medical leave, about which there is no issue here, was regularized. It is the petitioner's case that she was permitted to function as a regular Assistant Teacher with the Institution on and from 09.06.1992.

7. On the 13th of December, 1993, the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad sent a memo to the Manager of the Institution inquiring about the petitioner's status as an Assistant Teacher. This was replied to vide letter dated 13.02.1996 by the Manager of the Institution, informing the District Inspector of Schools that the petitioner was appointed an Assistant Teacher way back 29.09.1977 and given charge of the officiating Headmistress of the Junior High School with the District Basic Education Officer's approval. The letter further says that she fell ill and the charge of the officiating Headmaster was given to one Ram Lallu Rathore. After the petitioner joined back her duties in the year 1986, she was not given officiating charge of the Headmistress, but permitted to join as an Assistant Teacher. The memo from the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad dated 13.12.1993 bears reference No.1989/1993-94, whereas the Manager's reply dated 13.02.1996 does not bear any reference number. These are on record as Annexure No.13 to the writ petition.

8. It is the petitioner's specific case pleaded in Paragraph No.21 of the writ petition that before the institution was extended grant-in-aid, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher and her name figured at Sr. No.1 in the return that was submitted to the State Government on 28.06.1999 and duly verified by the Principal of the Institution, the Manager and the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad. This return was submitted for the purpose of extension of grant-in-aid to the Institution, that was provided to them. The petitioner's case is that when the order dated 29.12.1999 was issued extending grant-in-aid to the Institution, the petitioner's name did not find place there. She, therefore, filed another writ petition, being C.M. Writ Petition No.1418 of 2000, wherein this Court issued notice directing parties to exchange pleadings. It appears that in the last mentioned writ petition, the petitioner not only sought to enforce her right to receive salary as an Assistant Teacher of the Institution, now borne on State grant, but also the right to the position of Headmistress of the Institution.

9. This Court in Writ Petition No.1418 of 2000 passed a further order dated 25.05.2000 requiring the Joint Director of Education to inquire into the matter regarding the petitioner's entitlement to hold the position of the Headmistress and pass final orders within a month of filing of a certified copy of this Court's order. In compliance with the said order, the Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra rejected the petitioner's claim by his order dated 14.05.2001. The order of the Joint Director dated 14.05.2001 was challenged by the petitioner by moving still another writ petition, bearing No.23717 of 2001. By this time, there were three writ petitions, pending before this Court, all preferred by the petitioner. These were Writ Petition No.5110 of 1989, Writ Petition No.1418 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.23717 of 2001. Therefore, all the three were connected, heard together and decided by this Court on 09.09.2008 in terms of an order, which reads:

"In view of the aforesaid provision, the service of the petitioner stands regularised and further petitioner shall be deemed as Head Mistress of the Institution in the High School as the same became permanent in nature.

Thus, in view of the above, the opposite parties are directed to pay salary including arrears of salary within three months from today. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of."

10. Three special appeals were preferred from the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.09.2008 last mentioned. These were Special Appeal Nos.553 of 2009, 554 of 2009 and 332 of 2009. The petitioner asserts in Paragraph No.27 of the writ petition that Special Appeal No.553 of 2009 and 554 of 2009 were dismissed by the Division Bench on 05.05.2009 and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.09.2008 became final. It is also asserted in the same paragraph that the order dated 05.05.2009 passed in the two special appeals, last mentioned, was neither recalled nor challenged before the Supreme Court, and, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.09.2008 attained finality. It has further on been averred in Paragraph No.27 of the writ petition that the petitioner has become entitled to get salary in accordance with law in terms of the said order.

11. It is then said by the petitioner that Special Appeal No.332 of 2009 was finally disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2011 and the judgment and order dated 09.09.2008 in all the three writ petitions, which was affirmed in the earlier mentioned two special appeals, was illegally set aside by the Division Bench and the matter remanded to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh. It must be remarked here that if in fact the Division Bench vide order dated 31.01.2011 set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge in two of the three writ petitions, that had already been affirmed by the earlier order of the Division Bench dated 05.05.2009 passed in Special Appeal Nos.553 of 2009 and 554 of 2009, it was a matter that the petitioner had to agitate by seeking a review of the latter judgment of the Division Bench, setting aside the same order and remanding the writ petition to the learned Single Judge or challenging the order before the Supreme Court. That was not done. Therefore, the order of the Division Bench dated 31.01.2011 cannot be questioned before this Court in subsequent proceedings after the petitioner submitted to the order of remand and suited the matter before the learned Single Judge on merits. This part of the petitioner's objection to the order impugned here or the claim to base his rights on the two earlier orders of the Division bench in Special Appeal Nos.553 of 2009 and 554 of 2009 on ground that the later Division Bench hearing one of the appeals could not have set at naught the earlier Division Bench, cannot be sustained.

12. It is common ground between parties that in deference to the order of the Division Bench dated 31.01.2011, the matter was heard afresh by the learned Single Judge, who disposed of all the three writ petitions afresh, to wit, Writ Petition No.5110 of 1989, Writ Petition No.1418 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.23717 of 2001, by a common judgment and order dated 05.08.2013, directing the Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties regarding payment of salary to the petitioner, vis-a-vis the post of Assistant Teacher, as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.08.2013 along with a copy of the order dated 05.08.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.5110 of 1989, Writ Petition No.1418 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.23717 of 2001.

13. It is the petitioner's grievance also that the Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra did not take a decision and pass fresh orders as directed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 05.08.2013, but referred the matter to the Regional Level Committee, who dealt with it and passed an order dated 16.08.2014, rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 26.08.2013 and a subsequent one, dated 25.10.2013. It is this order order dated 16.08.2014, that is impugned in the present writ petition.

14. This Court has perused the impugned order and heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

15. The Regional Level Committee have scripted eleven and a quarter pages that go to make for the impugned order, where nine and a half pages have been devoted to writing out the parties' cases, orders passed by this Court and all unnecessary detail. The findings of the Regional Level Committee, in our opinion, are completely unsatisfactory and do not at all consider the petitioner's case with reference to the relevant evidence on record. There is a finding recorded to the effect that the order dated 20.07.1984, said to be issued by the District Basic Education Officer, bearing No. Memo/84-85 dated 20.07.1984, upon verification from the office of the B.S.A., has been reported by the said Officer vide his memo No.2875/2013-14 dated 13.06.2013 to be one, that is not entered in their dispatch register. It has been reported by the District Basic Education Officer that on the said date vide memo Vetan/2953/84-85 dated 20.07.1984, approval relating to the appointments of Headmaster Ram Lallu Rathore and Om Prakash Jadaon, Assistant Teacher was given. This approval, according to the finding of the Regional Level Committee, relates to the Institution.

16. It has further been observed that upon the Institution being extended the State grant, the Regional Joint Director of Education had issued a memo dated 28.12.1999, which showed approval for payment of salaries to the Headmaster Ram Lallu Rathore and thirteen teaching and non-teaching staff. The said letter extending grant does not carry approval for the petitioner. It has also been remarked that the petitioner has not been paid salary of the Headmistress or an Assistant Teacher of the Junior High School. The order also says that the letter dated 20.07.1984, said to be issued by the District Basic Education Officer, cannot be regarded an approval for the petitioner's lawful appointment. With these findings, the petitioner's claim has been rejected.

17. This Court has perused the order dated 20.07.1984, purporting to be issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Agra and addressed to the Manager of the Institution. The Regional Level Committee have said that upon a verification of this order, done from the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad through a letter dated 10.06.2013, it has been reported by the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Agra by their memo dated 13.06.2013 that the order of approval dated 20.07.1984 does not find place in the dispatch register of the Basic Education Officer, Agra. The Regional Level Committee have disbelieved the genuineness of the order dated 20.07.1984. It is certainly not open to this Court to go into the aforesaid pure question of fact and opine otherwise, but what appears to be seriously wanting in the entire disposition of the matter by the Regional Level Committee is that the order of approval dated 20.07.1984 is not the only foundation of the petitioner's claim to appointment as an LT Grade Teacher in the Junior High School, and then her right to be paid salary borne on State grant once the Institution, upgraded to a High School, was extended that grant. There is lots of other evidence about it, which ought to have been taken into consideration, but was not.

18. There is a Manager's return submitted to the State Government on 28.06.1999 for the purpose of extension of grant-in-aid by the Principal of the Institution and the Manager. This return is also signed by the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad. The return submitted under the signatures of the Principal and the Manager of the Institution as well as the District Inspector of Schools dated 28.06.1999, is annexed as Annexure No.14 to the writ petition. There is an averment in Paragraph No.21 of the writ petition to the effect that this return bears the petitioner's name at Sr. No.3 of the list of teachers and other staff of the Institution.

19. A perusal of the document shows that it is indeed a copy of the list of teachers and other staff of the Institution and on the first page at Sr. No.3, the petitioner's name finds mention. It details her date of initial appointment with the Institution as 29.09.1977 and also in the last column, the date and the reference number of the Education Authorities' letter of approval to the particular appointment. Against the petitioner's name in column No.10, the date of approval mentioned is 01.03.1980 and the reference number of the approval order is 1835/84-85 dated 19.07.1984. This reference number along with the date of approval is scored out by a single line and below it, the date 01.03.1980 is entered. This document has been signed by the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad, apart from the Manager and the Principal of the Institution. It carries the names of all the teachers and staff of the Institution, to whom grant-in-aid has been extended. The petitioner's name is, therefore, part of a wholesome and complete document. The scoring out of the petitioner's approval order, number and the date of approval is a matter, which requires careful scrutiny. Apparently, the other teachers mentioned in the document, annexed as Annexure No.14 to the writ petition, that is to say, the Manager's return, submitted for the purpose of extension of grant-in-aid to the State Government, are receiving or have received salary borne on State grant. There is no reason why the petitioner, who ranks quite senior in the list of Assistant Teachers and stands at Sr. No.3, could be deprived of that benefit. There has to be some explicable reason to exclude the petitioner.

20. Much to the contrary, this document, which is the foundation for extension of State grant to the Institution for all other teachers, has not at all been taken into consideration by the Regional Level Committee. This certainly amounts to ignorance of material by the Regional Level Committee while returning their findings carried in the order impugned. To add to this is the fact that the contents of Paragraph No.21 of the writ petition, which assert the existence of the document, annexed as Annexure No.14 to the writ petition, and says that the petitioner's name found place in the Manager's return for extension of grant-in-aid to the Institution, has not been denied in Paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad, jointly. All that is said in Paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit is that the contents of Paragraph Nos.16 to 21 of the writ petition need no comments. The contents of Paragraph No.21 of the writ petition, therefore, stand admitted by non-traverse. This would add to the weight of this relevant material, that has been completely ignored from consideration by the Regional Level Committee.

21. This is not the entire evidence about the petitioner's functioning. There are documents on record to show that the petitioner did function as the acting Headmistress of the Institution, much before the Institution was upgraded to a High School and extended grant-in-aid. While it may be true that mere acts of the petitioner done as Headmistress of the Junior High School, that she has alleged and attempted to establish by documentary evidence, may not be the source of her appointment with the Institution, but these are certainly materials, which show that the person, who had done these acts within the cognizance of different Authorities of the Education Department or the Examination Board, would be a person validly holding the office of the officiating Headmistress at the relevant point of time. A fortiori, it also needs consideration that a person, whose acts were accepted to be those of the officiating Headmistress, would certainly be an Assistant Teacher with the Junior High School at the time that she was officiating.

22. These acts done as the officiating Headmistress include the issue of transfer certificates to different scholars, of which there is specific assertion in Paragraph No.15 of the writ petition, mentioning their names and annexing copies of these certificates. In Paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit, it is averred that the petitioner was working as 'unaided principal' and approval to her appointment was not given by the Education Department. What the respondents mean by 'unaided principal' is that the petitioner officiated as Headmistress of the Junior High School without the Education Authorities' approval. This could be true, but unconsidered evidence, also on record, seems to speak otherwise. There is on record as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, copy of an order attesting the petitioner's signatures as Headmistress of the Junior High School by the Manager and approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Along with true copies of the documents, photostat copies are also there. This was one piece of evidence, which ought to have been considered by the Regional Level Committee. Apart from it, the petitioner did other acts as an Assistant Teacher with the Institution, such as her appointment as an Examiner to evaluate answer-books pertaining to Hindi by the Additional Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Regional Office, Meerut vide letter dated 09.04.2001. The copy of the letter dated 09.04.2001 shows that it is issued to the petitioner with her position as a Teacher of the Rashtriya Shramik High School. She has been assigned Examiner No.00803. The letter of the Additional Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education bears reference No.M-SB/2001-M. There is also evidence about similar assignments given to the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher of the Institution by the Education Board. No doubt, these evidence are not sources of the petitioner's appointment, but are sufficient incidents to be considered while forming an opinion if the petitioner was part of the staff of the Institution before it came to be aided by the State. All this has not at all been considered by the Regional Level Committee.

23. This Court has earlier noticed that on 13.12.1993, the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad sent a letter to the Manager of the Institution and sought information regarding the petitioner's status as an Assistant Teacher. In reply, the Manager of the Institution, after a very long time, responded on 13th February, 1996, saying that the petitioner was appointed an Assistant Teacher with the Institution on 29.09.1977 and given charge of the officiating Headmistress, a charge that was duly approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Agra. It also mentions the fact that the petitioner fell ill and charge of the Headmaster was then passed on to Ram Lallu Rathore. This letter was received in the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad on 14.02.1996. There is an assertion about the existence of this correspondence between the District Inspector of Schools and the Manager of the Institution in Paragraph No.20 of the writ petition, apart from both the documents being annexed as Annexure No.13 to the writ petition.

24. In Paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit filed jointly on behalf of the Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad, there is no denial to the contents of Paragraph No.20 of the writ petition, which again stand admitted by non-traverse. Once the existence of this correspondence between the Manager of the Institution and the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad has not been denied at all, this evidence ought to have been considered by the Regional Level Committee as well. Unfortunately, this has also not been done. Therefore, this Court finds that there is material and weighty evidence on record, which the Regional Level Committee have completely ignored from consideration while passing the order impugned, rejecting the petitioner's claim.

25. For all these reasons, we think that the matter must go back to the Regional Level Committee for a consideration de novo, where the Committee will look into all the evidence that we have pointed out, besides any other that the petitioner may place on record, that has material bearing on her status as a validly appointed Assistant Teacher in the Institution before it was taken on grant-in-aid. The impugned order passed by the Regional Level Committee for all these reasons cannot meet our approval.

26. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 16.08.2014 passed by the Regional Level Committee, Agra Region, Agra is hereby quashed. The matter shall now be placed before the Regional Level Committee, Agra Region, Agra, or whomsoever be the competent Authority, exercising those powers within a week of receipt of this judgment by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra. The Regional Level Committee or the Authority concerned will pass appropriate orders in the matter of the petitioner's claim of entitlement to salary as an Assistant Teacher of the Institution borne on State grant within eight weeks of the receipt of a copy of this judgment in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and bearing in mind the guidance here.

27. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 03.01.2024

Anoop

(J.J. Munir, J.)