Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 123

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Pancham Lal Pandey - Appellant
Versus
Neeraj Kumar Mishra & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.3329 of 2021]
Decided On : 15-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vk Shukla, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ms. Shreya Bhojnagarwala, Adv. Ms. Srishti Singh, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Payment of salary to teachers shall be made on the basis of seniority and subject of teaching has no relevance.
(2) Review – Provision of review is not to scrutinize correctness of decision rendered rather to correct error which is visible on face of order / record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from one expressed.

Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Salary – Review – Single Judge has allowed writ petition in light of statement of Joint Secretary, Department of Secondary Education that payment of salary to teachers shall be made on the basis of seniority and subject of teaching had no relevance – Bifurcation of sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers of institution subject-wise is simply an internal matter of institution which does not put any extra burden upon State – Institution was taken on Grant-in-Aid list with a Headmaster and four Assistant Teachers in order of seniority and permitting only five persons to receive salary from Government fund is not illegal – There is no creation of any new post of Assistant Teacher at Institution by Court – Writ Court rightly allowed writ petition and Division Bench has not committed any error in dismissing Special Appeal. (Para 13)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 – Review – Provision of review is not to scrutinize correctness of decision rendered rather to correct error which is visible on face of order / record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from one expressed – Division Bench in allowing review petition has dealt with the matter as it is seized of special appeal itself and has virtually reversed decision by taking a completely new stand for payment of salary to teachers’ subject-wise – It amounts to rehearing and rewriting judgment in appeal without there being any error apparent on face in earlier order – Division Bench clearly exceeded its review jurisdiction in passing impugned order. (Paras 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Tripathi Ramroop Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Jogapur, Kaushambi in the State of Uttar Pradesh is a recognised institution imparting Sanskrit Education upto Uttar Madhyama, i.e., Class I to XII. It was granted permanent recognition on 22.02.1999. The Government of Uttar Pradesh decided to take Sanskrit Vidyalaya and Mahavidyalaya on Grant-in-Aid List. Criteria for taking institutions under the Grant-in-Aid List was laid down in G.O. dated 07.02.2014. State Government vide its order dated 11.08.2015 notified the list of institutions which were taken in the Grant-in-Aid list of Government, which included the above institution at Serial No.47.
Findings of Court:
In the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order dated 05.02.2021 allowing review is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Mithal, J.

1. Heard Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.K. Shukla, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Parul Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Tripathi Ramroop Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Jogapur, Kaushambi in the State of Uttar Pradesh is a recognised institution imparting Sanskrit Education upto Uttar Madhyama, i.e., Class I to XII. It was granted permanent recognition on 22.02.1999. The Government of Uttar Pradesh decided to take Sanskrit Vidyalaya and Mahavidyalaya on Grant-in-Aid List. The criteria for taking institutions under the Grant-in-Aid List was laid down in G.O. dated 07.02.2014. The State Government vide its order dated 11.08.2015 notified the list of institutions which were taken in the Grant-in-Aid list of the Government, which included the above institution at Serial No.47.

4. The State Government sanctioned five posts for payment of salary from the State Exchequer in respect of the above institution, one for the Headmaster and four for the Assistant Teachers.

5. The Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a Circular dated 01.01.2016 granting approval for the payment of salary to all the teachers of the institutions receiving Grant-in-Aid, who were actually working prior to taking the institution under the Grant-in-Aid list. Another Circular dated 18.03.2016 provided for the application of reservation policy. Since the said Circulars were affecting some of the teachers, one of them Satya Prakash Shukla filed Writ Petition No.29784 of 2016 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The said Writ Petition was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2016 on the statement made by the Joint Secretary, Department of Secondary Education “that the payment of salary to the teachers shall be made on the basis of seniority of teachers as disclosed in the Manager’s Return”. Unfortunately, the Director Secondary Education ignoring the statement so made by the Joint Secretary before the High Court bifurcated the posts of Assistant Teachers vide order dated 28.03.2017 and directed that one Neeraj Kumar Mishra, who was almost five years junior to one Pancham Lal Pandey, to be paid salary. Accordingly, the aforesaid Pancham Lal Pandey preferred Writ Petition No.19709 of 2017 challenging the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Director Secondary Education. The aforesaid writ petition upon hearing the parties was allowed vide judgment and order dated 15.04.2019 quashing the order dated 28.03.2017 with directions to the authorities to declare Pancham Lal Pandey entitled to payment of salary from the State Exchequer.

6. The aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court dated 15.04.2019 was assailed by Neeraj Kumar Mishra as well as State Government by separate Special Appeal Nos.578 of 2019 and 767 of 2019. The Special Appeal No.578 of 2019 of Neeraj Kumar Mishra was dismissed on 14.05.2019 and that filed by the State Government, i.e., Special Appeal No.767 of 2019 was dismissed on 22.08.2019.

7. The aforesaid Neeraj Kumar Mishra preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23466 of 2019 before this Court which came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2019.

8. Upon dismissal of the Special Appeal filed by the State, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.782 of 2020 was preferred by the State and the same was dismissed on 24.01.2020 with the clarification that the liability of the State shall be limited to pay the salary to the Headmaster and four teachers upto the sanctioned strength.

9. It is in the above background that Neeraj Kumar Mishra applied for the review in Special Appeal No.578 of 2019, i.e., against the order dated 14.05.2019, whereby his Special Appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.04.2019 was dismissed. The aforesaid Review Application has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2021.

10. In assailing the aforesaid order,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document