SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Pat) 43

PATNA HIGH COURT
P.S.Mishra, J.
Mahakant Jha
Versus
Special Secretary, Education Deptt., Patna
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 113 of 1982 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 1, 1983

An appointment made by an incompetent authority is void and cannot be validated by subsequent approval.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHER - VALIDITY - STATUTORY VIOLATION - APPROVAL BY INCOMPETENT AUTHORITY - NO IMPLIED ENGAGEMENT - NO MANDAMUS FOR PAYMENT OF SALARY OR CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a High School by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School in May 1976. The Managing Committee regularized his appointment in November 1977 and the Board of Secondary Education approved his appointment in October 1977. The petitioner continued to teach in the school until the school was taken over by the State Government in October 1980. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay him arrears of salary from May 1977 and to confirm his appointment as an Assistant Teacher.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's appointment was invalid as it was made by an incompetent authority. The Secretary of the Managing Committee and the Managing Committee itself did not have the power to make the appointment. The approval granted by the Board of Secondary Education and the Inspectress of Schools was also invalid as it was granted post-facto and without the prior approval of the Sub-divisional Education Officer. The court also held that the petitioner's continued teaching in the school did not create an implied engagement as the appointment was void from the beginning.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher was valid. 2. Whether the approval granted by the Board of Secondary Education and the Inspectress of Schools was valid. 3. Whether the petitioner's continued teaching in the school created an implied engagement.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's appointment was invalid as it was made by an incompetent authority. The Secretary of the Managing Committee and the Managing Committee itself did not have the power to make the appointment. 2. The court held that the approval granted by the Board of Secondary Education and the Inspectress of Schools was also invalid as it was granted post-facto and without the prior approval of the Sub-divisional Education Officer. 3. The court held that the petitioner's continued teaching in the school did not create an implied engagement as the appointment was void from the beginning.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.

Judgment

1. The petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary with effect from 21-5-1977, on account of the services rendered by him in the Balika Uchcha Vidyalaya, Bariarpur, Monghyr, and for a further direction to confirm and approve his appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the said School with effect from the date of his appointment by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School.

2. The petitioner applied, as stated in the writ application, in response to an advertisement dated 28-5-1976, published in the local newspapers for the post of a permanent History Teacher in the Balika Uchcha Vidyalaya, Bariarpur, Monghyr. A copy of his application for the said post advertised on 28-5-1976 is Annexure-1 to the writ application. According to him he graduated with History Hons. in the year 1968 from the Bhagalpur University and did his Teachers Training course from the said University in the year 1970. He was fully qualified for the post of a teacher in the School. Accordingly, he was called for interview and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School gave to him a letter of appointment against a sanctioned post of the School on the Kothari scale of pay. He joined the School on 21-6-1976. The Managing Committee of the School approved his appointment at its meeting dated 30th May, 1976 - vide its resolution No. 3. Yet at another meeting dated 4-11-1977 the Managing Committee regularised the petitioners appointment as the permanent teacher of the School. A recommendation was made to the Board of Secondary Education for payment of his salary as per rules admissible under the Kothari Commission which was being paid to other efficient teachers of different schools. The Director of the Board of the Secondary Education examined all the records of the petitioner and held in his favour. The Chairman of the Board communicated his decision to the District Inspectress of Schools (the respondent No. 5) and on 5-10-1977 an office order was issued by the respondent No. 5 to the effect that the provisional appointment of the petitioner in the school vide Resolution No. 3 dated 31-5-1976 of the Managing Committee of the School was approved and the petitioner would be entitled to the scale of pay of a teacher as recommended by the Kothari Commission. The said letter of approval is Annexure-3 to the writ application.

3. The petitioner has alleged that he was paid a sum of Rs. 3,340.00 towards his salary in the month of Nov., 1977, against the claim for the period from 21-6-1976 to 20-5-1977 and for the rest of his claims he was asked to wait. The petitioner, however, continued his teaching work in the school, as usual, although no emoluments were paid to him. He made several requests for the payment of the arrears as also the current salary but to no effect.

4. On 30-5-1973 he sent a representation to the respondent No. 1 (the Special Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar) stating therein that he was not paid his salary from June, 1977 and his current salary has also not been paid to him. He made yet another representation on 15-8-1978 and also personally met the respondent No. 1 and acquainted him with the facts of the case. On 20-10-1978 he filed a fresh representation but no heed, however, was paid by the respondents to any of the representations by the petitioner. The petitioner met the Special Secretary (the respondent No. 1) on 1-12-1978 and requested him to take necessary action. He also met the Chairman of the Board of the Secondary Education on 2-12-1978, who told him that necessary orders would be passed in his case in due course. When nothing, however, materialised, the petitioner filed yet another application addressed to the Secretary of the School on 11-1-1979 for payment of his salary. The Secretary of the school forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Board of Secondary Educat








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top