Back
2002 Supreme(All) 145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. Mathur and U. S. Tripathi, JJ.
HARI LAL - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR, SAMAJ KALYAN - Respondents
Special Appeal 47 Of 1998
Decided On : 01/23/2002
J.P.Singh, R.B.TRIVEDI, R.G.PADIA, RAMESHWAR NATH, S.U.KHAN
The legal point established is that teachers appointed in violation of Rule 9 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools Rules have no legal right to claim salary.
Headnote:
Appointment - Dispute over working of teachers and payment of salary - U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of service of Teachers and Others Conditions) Rules, 1975 - Rule 9
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved the working of teachers and payment of their salary in a school. The Director, Samaj Kalyan, U.P., had granted sanction for payment of salary to certain teachers, which led to the filing of writ petitions by other teachers for similar relief. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the teachers who filed the writ petitions had not been appointed in accordance with Rule 9 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools Rules, and therefore, had no legal right to claim salary. The court also noted that the petitioners had concealed the fact that the other teachers had obtained a temporary injunction order in their favor, which was an additional ground for dismissing the writ petitions.
Issues: Dispute over working of teachers and payment of salary, Validity of appointments under Rule 9 of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools Rules, Concealment of facts by the petitioners
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the teachers who had not been appointed in accordance with Rule 9 had no legal right to claim salary. The court also considered the concealment of facts by the petitioners as an additional ground for dismissing the writ petitions.
Final Decision: The special appeals were dismissed at the admission stage due to lack of merit.
( 1 ) THESE are three connected special appeals directed against a common judgment and order dated 18. 4. 1996 of a learned single Judge by which three writ petitions were disposed of. Special appeal No. 445 of 1998 arises out of Writ Petition No. 8785 of 1993. Special Appeal No. 446 of 1998 arises out of Writ Petition No. 16789 of 1993 and Special Appeal No. 447 of 1998 arises out of Writ Petition No. 8785 of 1993.
( 2 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 445 of 1998 was filed on 14. 8. 1996 and was registered as defective special Appeal No. 78 of 1996 as the same was not. In order. When the appeal was listed for admission on 19. 8. 1996, no one appeared to press the appeal. The case was listed on several dates and was dismissed in default on 10. 3. 1999. After restoration of appeal, it was heard on 30. 4. 2001, when certain directions were issued. The appellants then filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the judgment of a civil suit. Thereafter, all the three appeals have been heard for admission/ hearing.
( 3 ) FOR the purpose of array of parties, Special Appeal No. 445 of 1998 shall be treated as the leading case wherein. Hari Lal, Urmila Kumar Chandan. Smt. Prem Balika Devi, Radhika Devi, ram Milan Yadav. Chandrika and Indra Bhushan are appellant Nos. 1 to 7. The main contesting respondents are Doodh Nath, Rempher Ram, Ashok Kumar, Mahendra Rai, Barkhu Yadav and rajnath being respondent Nos. 2 to 7.
( 4 ) THE dispute relates to working of teachers and payment of their salary in Maha Devi Verma harijan Karmottar Bal Vidhyalaya, Langarpur. district Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as school ). According to the case of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. they have been appointed as Assistant teachers in the School on 1. 7. 1975, 1. 7. 1974, 1. 9. 1977 and 1. 9. 1981 respectively, and they had been continuously teaching therein. A dispute of Committee of Management of the Institution arose as Ram Bali Ram and Kamla Prasad both claimed to be the Managers of the Committee of management. The result of this dispute was that hindrance was put in the working of the aforesaid teaches and in payment of their salary. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5, filed O. S. No. 424 of 1983 in the Court of Munsif. Mohamanabad Gohna, district Azamgarh, praying that a decree of injunction be passed restraining the defendants from interfering in their working as Assistant teachers in the School. They also filed an application for interim injunction for restraining the defendants of the suit from interfering in their working as Assistant Teachers in the suit. Initially, an ex parte injunction order was granted on 8. 8. 1983. The application was contested by the defendants and after hearing the parties, the learned Munsif by his judgment and order dated 25. 4. 1990 allowed the injunction application and restrained the defendants from interfering in the plaintiffs working as Assistant Teacher in the School. The defendants in the suit preferred an appeal against the said order, which was allowed on 30. 8. 1991 by the Additional District Judge and the injunction application was dismissed. The plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 2 to 5 of the special Appeal) then filed Writ Petition No. 35787 of 1991, challenging the judgment and order dated 30. 8. 1991 in which the operation of the order of the Additional District Judge was stayed on 12. 12. 1991. Learned counsel for the parties have made a statement that the writ petition is still pending. The result of the stay order passed by this Court is that the injunction order, which had been initially granted by the learned Munsif on 8. 8. 1983 became operative.
( 5 ) THE institution was initially not receiving any grant-in-aid. Subsequently, by the order of the state Government dated 31. 3. 1989, the institution came on grant-in-aid and started receiving aid from the State Government. However, on account of certain disputes, the State Government passed another order on 21. 6. 1989 by which the aid being given to the instit
