Smt. Arti Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 8867 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Arti Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 10 April, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC:52344
 
Judgment Reserved on  07.04.2025
 
Delivered on 10.4.2025 
 
Court No. - 6
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14376 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Arti Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sr. Advocate,Vineet Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Shukla
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15189 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Madhuri Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Daya Shankar Singh,Shailendra(Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Heard Sri H.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in the leading writ petition and Sri Shailendra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Daya Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents in connected writ petition.

2. This appears to be a third round of litigation.

3. The facts of the present case are extracted from the judgement passed in the last round of litigation i.e. in Writ Petition No. 15407 of 2019 along with Writ Petition No.15709 of 2019, which was allowed by the judgment dated 26.11.2019:

"There is an institution known as 'Ram Naresh Singh Balika Junior High School, Saraitriloki, District- Jaunpur'. The institution was self-financed. The petitioner and respondent No.6 (Smt Madhuri Singh), were appointed as Assistant Teacher in the same selection proceeding in the year 2002. The appointment of the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 was approved by Respondent No. 3- Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, by order dated 21.12.2002.

The aforesaid institution came on grant-in-aid in the year 2006, and the salary of the petitioner was paid from the State exchequer. However, the respondent no.6 was not paid salary despite the fact that she continued to discharge her duty as Assistant Teacher. Therefore, she preferred Writ Petition No. 25958 of 2016 (Madhuri Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others), which was disposed of by this court by judgment and order dated 03.04.2019. The relevant extract of the judgment and order dated 03.04.2019 is quoted as under:-

"10. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation ventillating all her grievances before the respondent no.2/Additional Director, Basic Education, 5th Region, Varanasi, along-with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.2/Additional Director, Basic Education, 5th Region, Varanasi, is directed to pass appropriate order after hearing the respondent no.4/Manager of the Committee of Management, Ram Naresh Singh Balika Junior High School, Sarai Triloki, District Jaunpur, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of three months, in accordance with law.

11. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally.

12. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law."

Pursuant to order dated 03.04.2019 passed by this Court, respondent No. 2- Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, District- Varanasi, passed an order dated 09.08.2019 whereby the claim of respondent no.6, Madhuri Singh, for payment of salary has been rejected. By the said order, respondent No. 2 has also stopped the payment of salary of the petitioner.

This Court has called for instructions from the learned Standing Counsel by the order dated 18.11.2019, in Writ Petition No. 15407 of 2019 (Arati Singh Vs. State of U.P and 4 Others). The order of this Court dated 18.11.2019, is quoted as under:-

"Petitioner is permitted to implead Madhuri Singh as respondent no. 6 during the course of the day.

Heard Sri R. K. Ojha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri S. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. S. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

Petitioner claims to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in Ram Naresh Balika Junior, High School, Saraitriloki, Badlapur, District-Jaunpur in the year 2002 and approval to her appointment was granted by respondent no. 3-District Basic Education Officer on 21.12.2002. The aforesaid institution came on grant in aid in December, 2006 and the petitioner was paid salary from the State exchequer since then.

According to the petitioner, a dispute has been raised by the newly added respondent no. 6-Madhuri Singh contending that she has wrongly been denied salary and she filed a Writ-A No. 25958 of 2016 in which this Court directed the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner. Pursuant to order passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 25958 of 2016, the respondent no.2-Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Varanasi Region, Varanasi has decided the representation of newly added respondent no. 6. By the the said order he has also cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. The said order is impugned in the writ petition.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the said order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given the petitioner before passing the said order. In this regard necessary averments have been made in paragraph nos. 25, 26 and 27 of the writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed a week's time to seek instructions in the matter.

Put up on 26.11.2019 in the additional cause list on which date the Standing Counsel shall inform the Court as to whether the petitioner was given any notice or afforded opportunity of hearing by the respondent no. 2 Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Varanasi Region, Varanasi or not."

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 18.11.2019, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel states that the notice was not issued to Smt. Arati Singh before passing the order impugned. Thus, as it is admitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that no opportunity of hearing is granted to the affected parties before passing the impugned order, therefore, the order impugned being in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained.

The order dated 09.08.2019 passed by respondent no.2 has also been assailed by Smt. Madhuri Singh in Writ A No.15709 of 2019. Challenging the said order of respondent no.2, Sri Shailendra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner (Madhuri Singh) submits that finding of respondent no.2 that selection of Smt. Madhuri Singh was illegal inasmuch as selection procedure prescribed in Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1978') has not been followed is perverse and against the record inasmuch as according to him, the selection of Smt. Madhuri Singh was done after following the due procedure as provided in Rules, 1978.

This Court has held in Writ A No.15407 of 2019 that the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice and is not sustainable, therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned in its entirety be set aside.

Thus, for the reasons given above, the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by respondent no.2 is set aside. Both the writ petitions are allowed with liberty to respondent no.2, Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Varanasi Region, Varanasi, to pass fresh order after giving notice and due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties including petitioners in both the writ petitions within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

4. In pursuance of aforesaid order, claim of both the petitioners were considered afresh and vide impugned order dated 12.11.2020, both claims were rejected. Relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

"1- प्रबन्धक संचालक की आख्यानुसार रजिस्ट्रार सहायक निबंधक सोसाइटीज फर्मस चिटस वाराणसी मण्डल वाराणसी के रिकार्ड में उक्त संस्था के प्रबन्धक संदर्भित अध्यापको की नियुक्ति कालीन अवधि में श्री अजीत सिंह ही थे।

2- दिनांक 17-05-2019 में उपजिलाधिकारी बदलापुर के न्यायालय में एवं माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित याचिका संख्या 29260/2019 के हलफनामा में भी श्री अजीत सिंह ने स्वयं को संस्था का वर्ष 1996 से लगातार प्रबन्धक के रूप में स्वीकार किया गया है।

3- दिनांक 10-06-2020 को सुनवाई के समय श्रीमती आरती सिंह से श्री लाल बहादुर सिंह के प्रबन्धक के रूप में सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा प्रमाणित हस्ताक्षर माँगे गये थे जिसे उपलब्ध कराने श्रीमती आरती सिह असमर्थ रही।

4- श्रीमती सुशीला सिंह जो कि उक्त संस्था में प्रधानाध्यापक के रूप में कार्यरत रही, उनके रहते उसी संस्था में उनकी सगी सम्बन्धी देवरानी आरती सिंह की नियुक्ति अवैध है आरती सिंह द्वारा श्रीमती सुशीला सिह को पट्टीदार बताया जाना गलत है। प्रधानाध्यापक प्रबन्ध समिति का पदेन सदस्य होता है।

5- श्रीमती शशिकला सिंह के प्रभारी प्रधानाचार्य के रूप में किसी सक्षम अधिकारी द्वार हस्ताक्षर प्रमाणित नहीं किये गये थे।

6- श्रीमती सुशीला सिंह की जन्मतिथि दिनांक 01-10-1953 है परिवार रजिस्टर के अनुसार उनकी प्रथम सन्तान की जन्मतिथि दिनांक 20-03-1980 एंव द्वितीय सन्तान की जन्मतिथि दिनांक 15-04-1984 है। अतः उनकी प्रसूतावकाश 2002 में देय नही है।

7- तथ्यो के आधार पर श्री अजीत सिंह ही तत्समय प्रबन्धक रहे है। अतः उनके रहते श्री लालबहादुर सिंह द्वारा श्रीमती आरती सिंह एवं श्रीमती माधुरी सिंह की नियुक्ति कूटरचित स्पष्ट है।

निर्णय

उक्त समीक्षा के आधार पर पूर्णतया स्पष्ट है कि श्रीमती आरती सिंह एवं श्रीमती माधुरी सिंह का चयन अनुमोदन नियमावली 1978 के अऩ्तर्गत नहीं किया गया है। अतः श्रीमती आरती सिंह तथा श्री माधुरी सिंह के चयन में कूट रचना की गयी है। अतः दोनो याची के वेतन भुगतान आदेश जारी करने की मांग बलहीन होने के फलस्वरूप स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है। एतदद्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद के आदेश दिनांक 26.11.2019 के अनुपालन में याचीगणों का वेतन भुगतान संबंधित प्रकरण निस्तारित किया जाता है।"

5. This Court has vide order dated 2.2.2021 has passed an interim order whereby effect and operation of impugned order dated 12.11.2020 was stayed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner (Smt. Arti Singh) has submitted that in earlier rounds of litigation, allegations against said petitioner and other writ petitioner regarding irregularities in respective appointments were rejected by a reasoned order and since it was not further challenged, therefore, has attained finality. Learned Senior Counsel has referred an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18869 of 2009, (Arvind Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors), filed by the complainant, whereby objection to her appointment was rejected and appointment of Smt. Arti Singh (Respondent no.6 therein) was found to be legal. For reference said order is reproduced hereinafter:

"A supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel.

Ram Naresh Balika Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Sarai-triloki In District Jaunpur was recognized in 1978 and obtained grant In aid In 2006 and is affiliated to Sampurnanand, Sanskrit University, Varanasi. The petitioner claims himself to be the alleged Deputy Manager of the Institution. On a complaint that respondent nos. 6 and 7 were daughter in laws of the Manager were illegally appointed by him in the institution, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide order dated 31.5.2008 stopped the salary payment. However, when the aforesaid order was recalled vide order dated 22.10.2008, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 59222 of 2008 and this Court quashed the said order dated 22.10.2008 on the ground that it was a unreasoned order and remanded it for decision afresh to the Basic Shiksha Adhkari after hearing the parties Including the petitioner vide order dated 17.11.2008. In pursuance thereof, the present impugned order dated 25.3.2009 has been passed holding that when the respondent nos. 6 and 7 were appointed in 1989, Shyam Bihari Singh was not the Manager of the institution but the signature of one Lal Bahadur Singh had been attested as Manager and his signature was also approved.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Lal Bahadur Singh was working as a Senior Lecturer In a Institution now in the State of Uttranchal, therefore, could not have been appointed as Manager. This contention of the petitioner is not proved from the record. A bald statement has been made only in paragraph 5 that Lal Bahadur Singh was a Senior Lecturer In Government College at Uttranchal but the details of the College of the town/city in which it was situated or its name has not been disclosed nor any evidence to prove this contention has been disclosed. Accordingly, the argument cannot be accepted.

Lastly, it is urged that the reappointment of the respondents in 2001 shown to have been made by Ajit Singh and, therefore, it is vitiated. This argument also cannot be accepted. The authority has examined in detail including the orders passed by various authorities to record a finding that on both occasions Lal Bahadur Singh was the Manager.

No other point has been urged.

For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Rejected."

7. Learned Senior Counsel for other writ petitioner (Madhuri Singh) has submitted that she being aggrieved that her salary was not paid, therefore, approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.25958 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.4.2019 to consider her grievance, however, at this stage concerned respondent has not only rejected claim of said petitioner, but re-opened case of petitioner (Smt. Arti Singh) also and issue which has attained finality was re-opened vide order dated 3.4.2019 and claim of both the petitioners were rejected. There was no dispute to appointment of Madhuri Singh, since it was limited to unpaid salary, but due to reopening of case of Smt. Arti Singh, claim of both petitioners was rejected.

8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that both petitioners were appointed way back in the year 2002 and are working till date i.e. at least for more than two decades, therefore at this stage to question there appointments, which were found to be legal in the earlier round of litigation, would be against interest of justice.

9. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel have placed reliance on a judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors, Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC:14912, wherein this Court has followed the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Radheshyam Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of UP and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 10.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Madhuri Singh has added that there was no allegation against said petitioner that his appointment was suffered by any nepotism, therefore, she cannot be unsuited only on an alleged ground that other writ petitioner (Smt. Arti Singh) was allegedly related to the Manager of the Institution, though he fairly submitted that aforesaid reason has already been rejected in the earlier round of litigation.

11. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that though the said petitioner (Madhuri Singh) has also worked, but she was not paid salary whereas other petitioner (Smt. Arti Singh) was paid salary, therefore, her salary be also paid.

12. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that petitioner Smt. Arti Singh was related to Manager as well as to the Principal, therefore in view of relevant provisions, her appointment was bad in law. Since entire process was de- hors the rules and relevant provisions, therefore, appointment of other petitioner was also found to be bad in law.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that factual aspect of the case has not been much disputed by both the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners. There is no ground to interfere with impugned order.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

15. As referred above in the present case, in earlier round of litigation, challenge to the appointment of petitioner (Smt. Arti Singh) was rejected, however, issue was reopened when other petitioner (Madhuri Singh) approached this Court and matter was remanded to concerned respondent to decide her claim limited for payment of salary. However, on remand, entire matter was reopened and by an order dated 9.8.2019 appointment of both writ petitioners was cancelled. Said order was impugned in Writ Petition No.15407 of 2009 and 15709 of 2019 and as referred by this Court by order dated 26.11.2019, impugned order was set-aside and matter was remanded to the concerned respondent to decide afresh after hearing both the petitioners.

16. Accordingly, present impugned order was passed that petitioner (Smt. Arti Singh) was closely related to Smt. Sushila Singh, Headmistress of the school and Sri Ajeet Singh, husband of Smt. Arti Singh was also Manager of the society, therefore, her appointment being illegal was cancelled and since entire selection process was de-hors of rules, therefore, appointment of other petitioner (Madhuri Singh) was also cancelled.

17. Learned Senior Counsel by referring an Order dated 25.3.2009 passed by the respondent, has submitted that it was affirmed, since challenge to it at behest of the complainant, was rejected by this court vide order dated 8.4.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18869 of 2009.

18. In the aforesaid circumstances, once challenge to appointment of Smt. Arti Singh was rejected, it could not be re-opened by the concerned respondent, therefore, reason assigned in impugned order in regard to allegation against Sri Ajeet Singh that he was Manager of the institution could not sustain since orders referred above were not considered.

19. So far as appointment of other petitioner (Madhuri Singh) is concerned, there is no specific allegation against her except that she was appointed along with other writ petitioner i.e. Smt. Arti Singh.

20. As referred above, allegations against said petitioner (Smt. Arti Singh) were substantially rejected and there is no allegation against other petitioner (Madhuri Singh). The Court also take note that if the allegation of nepotism against appointment of Smt. Arti Singh are true, still it could not be re-opened after order dated 08.06.2009, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18869 of 2009, which has attained finality as well as in such circumstances said irregularity could be ignored, since she has worked thereafter for more than two decade.

21. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court takes note that both petitioners were appointed two decades ago and according to them they are still working, therefore, at this stage on basis of above finding to set-aside their appointments would not be in the interest of justice, accordingly impugned order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 is set-aside.

22. Last issue before this court is in regard to grievance of petitioner (Madhuri Singh) that she has not been paid her salary. In this regard, Court is of the view that Manager of the School will verify her attendance and send the papers to the concerned respondent who will consider the issue of salary and a reasoned decision will be taken within a short period and in case still there is any legal impediment, same shall also be communicated to said petitioner.

23. With aforesaid observations/directions both Writ Petitions are disposed of.

Order Date :-10.4.2025

SB