Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anu Saini And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 21 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
2025:AHC:58229
Reserved - 16/04/2025
Delivered - 21/04/2025
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9641 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Anu Saini And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Lal Pandey,Suyash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. It is case of petitioners that after due process, Selection Committee has selected both petitioners as Assistant Teachers by a decision dated 31.05.2011 and their papers were forwarded by Manager of Committee of Management of concerned primary school on same day to District Basic Education Officer, Meerut and accordingly, a communication was also made to District Social Welfare Officer, Meerut.
2. It is further case of petitioners that papers remained pending before concerned respondent despite communication from other concerned respondent for many years, probably on a ground that there was a dispute in regard to authority competent to take a decision on approval which got crystalized vide judgment dated 14.08.2015 passed in Writ A No. 5875 of 2010 (Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) that decision in regard to granting approval to appointment of teachers by Committee of Management shall be taken by District Basic Education Officer and accordingly a fresh request was made by Committee of Management on 17.08.2016 to District Basic Education Officer, Meerut.
3. It is further case of petitioners that despite above communication, when no decision was taken by District Basic Education Officer, Meerut, they filed Writ A No. 9852/2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 04.04.2017 that a decision be taken on approval of appointment of petitioners.
4. Accordingly, concerned District Basic Education Officer, Meerut passed an order dated 12.06.2017 and granted approval of appointment of petitioners, however, it was w.e.f. 04.04.2017 (date on which this Court passed an order in Writ A No. 9852/2017) on a ground of financial implication. Relevant part of order dated 12.06.2017 is mentioned below :-
"यह दोनों याचीगण जिनके द्वारा याचिका योजित की गई है उनका चयन एवं की गई नियुक्तियां टी०ई०टी० के सम्बन्ध में निर्गत राजाज्ञा से पूर्व की है। अतः टी०ई०टी० की पात्रता की अनिवार्यता से स्वतः मुक्त है। उक्त वर्णित स्थिति एवं परिस्थिति के आधार पर दोनो अध्यापिका श्रीमती अनु सैनी एवं श्रीमती पायल अग्रवाल मा० न्यायालय के उक्त निर्णय एवं आदेश के आधार पर अनुतोष पाने हेतु अधिकारी है और मा० न्यायालय के आ० आदेश एवं निर्णय दिनांक 04.04.2017 के अनुसार शासन हित में राजकोष पर अतिरिक्त व्यय भार को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए मा० न्यायालय के आदेश की निर्गत तिथि से पाने के अधिकारी होंगे।"
5. It is further case of petitioners that thereafter petitioners completed six months' course from an institution recognized by National Teachers Education Board and when petitioners were not granted salary, they have filed representations also, that they are entitled for salary from 2011 to 2017 also and when it remained unanswered, they have approached this Court by way of Writ A No. 10966 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2022 with liberty to petitioners to file a representation before District Basic Education Officer, Meerut with a further direction to said respondents to pass a reasoned order.
6. In aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have submitted their representations that they are entitled for salary from the date of their appointment till their appointments were approved also. Representations of petitioners were considered and were rejected vide order dated 23.03.2023 on a ground that appointments will be considered only w.e.f. date of approval and not from date they were allowed to join on basis of recommendation by Selection Committee of Committee of Management. Relevant part of order is quoted below :-
"6. याची श्रीमती अनु सैन व श्रीमती पायल अग्रवाल, स०अ० द्वारा अपनी नियुक्ति वर्ष 2011 में होना बताते हुए वर्ष 2017 से पूर्व के वेतन के भुगतान की जो मांग की जा रही है, वह नियम संगत / विभागीय नियमों के अनुरूप नहीं है क्योंकि उत्तर प्रदेश मान्यता प्राप्त बेसिक स्कूल अध्यापकों की भर्ती तथा सेवा की शर्ते और अऩ्य शर्ते) नियमावली, 1975 की धारा-9 में स्पष्ट प्राविधान है कि किसी भी संस्था में नवनियुक्त स०अ० की नियुक्ति के चयन के प्रस्ताव का अनुमोदन जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी से प्राप्त हो जाने के उपरान्त प्रबन्धक द्वारा चयनित अभ्यर्थी को नियुक्ति पत्र निर्गत किया जाता है तथा चयनित अभ्यर्थी द्वारा कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तिथि से वेतन आहरित किया जाता है, जिसका अनुपालन याची श्रीमती अनु सैनी एवं श्रीमती पायल अग्रवाल की नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में नहीं किया गया है।
7. चूंकि याची श्रीमती अनु सैनी एवं श्रीमती पायल अग्रवाल की नियुक्ति के चयन का अनुमोदन जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी, मेरठ के कार्यालय के पत्रांक / ई-2/3911-19/2017-18 दिनांक 12.06.2017 के द्वारा माननीय न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 04.04.2017 से प्रदान किया गया है तथा तददिनांक से याची श्रीमती अनु सैनी एवं श्रीमती पायल अग्रवाल स०अ० को निरान्तर वेतन का भुगतान प्राप्त हो रहा है। ऐसी स्थिति में याची श्रीमती अनु सैनी व श्रीमती पायल अग्रवाल स०अ० द्वारा अनुमोदन से पूर्व की अवधि के वेतन भुगतान की जो मांग की जा रही है, वह उत्तर प्रदेश मान्यता प्राप्त बेसिक स्कूल (अध्यापकों की भर्ती तथा सेवा की शर्ते और अन्य शर्ते) नियमावली 1975 की धारा-9 में दिये गये प्राविधानों के अनुरूप न होने के कारण अमान्य/अस्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है।"
7. Aforesaid order is impugned in this writ petition.
8. Sri Suyash Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that once selection process of petitioners was found legal and that they were working from date of appointment, therefore, only on a ground that approval was granted at a very belated stage, their right for salary from State Exchequer for earlier period could not be denied. The date of approval is relegated w.e.f. date of appointment. The selection process got completed with the order of approval but it ought to be w.e.f. their initial date of appointment.
9. Learned counsel for petitioners has referred relevant Rule 9 of Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions Rules, 1975 and for reference, Rule 9 is quoted below :-
"No person shall be appointed as teacher or other employee in any recognised school unless he possesses such qualifications as are specified in this behalf by the Board and for whose appointment the previous approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been obtained in writing. In case of vacancy the applications for appointment shall be invited by the concerned management through advertisement in at least two newspapers (one of them will be daily newspaper), giving at least thirty days time for submitting application. The date of interview may be given in the advertisement or the candidates bel informed of the date fixed for interview by registered post, giving them at least 15 days time fom the date of issue of the letter. The management shall not select any untrained teacher and if the selected candidate is a trained one, he will be approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari."
10. Learned counsel, by referring above referred Rules, has submitted that process for selection was initiated in terms of above referred Rule 9 and petitioners were selected and have started working. The order of approval is a consequential order and according to contents of above referred Rule 9, it does not state that appointment will come into effect only w.e.f. date of approval.
11. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Om Prakash Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC:243203.
12. Per contra, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C. for State has supported impugned order that selection process will finally conclude with approval granted by Basic Education Officer and prior to it, if any appointment is given and incumbent has worked, responsibility to pay salary would be on Committee of Management. The State will start paying salary under grant-in-aid only after appointment was approved.
13. The delay was not due to concerned respondent rather it was due to a dispute about authority who could pass order of approval which got crystalized in the year 2016 and within a short period thereafter, approval was granted. He has also referred contents of impugned order that petitioners ought to have given appointment only after approval and not before it.
14. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
15. As referred above, petitioners were selected by Selection Committee on 29.05.2011 and their papers were forwarded on 31.05.2011 to both respondents i.e. District Social Welfare Officer, Meerut and District Basic Education Officer, Meerut and it was not informed that petitioners were given appointment and they have started working.
16. As referred above, there was a dispute pending before this Court about authority who could pass approval in case of appointment of teachers in schools run by Social Welfare Department, which got cystalized only after 14.08.2015 and thereafter on basis of a fresh representation, a decision was taken by concerned B.S.A. and approval was granted w.e.f. date of order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation.
17. A reference was made of financial constraint also, therefore, it appears that in case of no financial implication, approval may be granted from the date of appointment since District Basic Education Officer has granted approval on 12.06.2017 w.e.f. earlier date i.e. 04.04.2017, when this Court has passed order for consideration of grievance of petitioners.
18. Court also takes note of Rule 9 of Rules, 1975 that it provides complete process of selection of teachers which includes previous approval of B.S.A. to commence selection process, to conduct selection process in terms of said provision and thereafter appointment will be approved by B.S.A., therefore, process will conclude only by approval of B.S.A. and not before that, therefore, appointment will come into force only after approval.
19. A reliance on Om Prakash Yadav (supra) could not be helpful to petitioner since it was a case of eligibility whereas in present case, matter is in regard to effectiveness of date.
20. The procedure of appointment got completed with approval, therefore, effective date would be date of approval, not before it as it also has financial implication.
21. Accordingly, this Court does not find any force in this writ petition, hence, it is dismissed.
Order Date :- April 21, 2025
Sinha_N.
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
