Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. R. Singh, J.
MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, ALIGARH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 30567 Of 2000
Decided On : 08/31/2000
Mandamus - Salary Dispute - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Section 16(2) - U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act, 1982, Section 32 - U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought mandamus for salary payment as an L.T. grade teacher from a specific date, claiming appointment in a short-term vacancy. The appointment was allegedly made by the Committee of Management, but the District Inspector of Schools did not approve the appointment, leading to the petitioner's approach to the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment could not be justified under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and deemed it illegal and void under the U.P. Services Selection Boards Act, 1982. The court also ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to mandamus for salary payment under the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the petitioner's appointment and entitlement to mandamus for salary payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's appointment did not comply with the relevant regulations and acts, rendering it illegal. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner was not entitled to mandamus for salary payment under the specific act cited.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to pursue relief through the civil court against the Committee of Management.
( 1 ) PETITIONER herein seeks issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay him salary admissible to the post of L. T. grade teacher w. e. f. 27. 3. 2000. Relief of mandamus against the respondent No. 1 is also sought commanding him to decide the petitioners representation regarding payment of salary admissible to the post of L. T. grade teacher with effect from the date the petitioner joined his duties.
( 2 ) PETITIONER claims to have been appointed in a short term vacancy advertised by the Committee of Management. Patel Smarak Inter College. Jagtari, Aligarh. In Dainik "aaj" on 8. 3. 2000 and in "rashtriya Sahara" on 10. 3. 2000. It is alleged in the writ petition that one Karanpal Singh. Lecturer [economics) retired from service on 30. 6. 1998. Resulted vacancy on the post of lecturer (Economics) was filled by giving ad-hoc promotion to one Prem Raj Sharma. Assistant teacher in L. T. grade. Ad-hoc promotion of Shrl Prem Raj Sharma is satd to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 7. 12. 1999. The vacancy resulting on account of ad-hoc promotion of Shrl Prem Raj Sharma was advertised as aforestated and the petitioner was selected for appointment. The appointment letter dated 26. 3. 2000 is said to have been issued in favour of the petitioner pursuant to which he joined his duties in the institution. It is also alleged that papers relating to ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools. Aligarh, on 27. 3. 2000 for financial approval. But the District Inspector of Schools communicated no decision despite repeated representations whereupon the petitioner was left with no option but to approach this Court.
( 3 ) I have heard Sri S. N. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the writ -petition. Ad-hoc vacancies in the post of teacher caused by grant of leave to him or on account of his suspension duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools or otherwise used to be filled in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Service commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order. 1981 which has since been rescinded w. e. f. 25. 1. 1999 by virtue of Section 33e of U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards act. 1982. Concededly. therefore, the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Service commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order. 1981. was not available for being resorted to at the time when the petitioner was appointed. Sri S. N. Srivastava, however, submits that notwithstanding the recession of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981. w. e. f. 25. 1. 1999. ad-hoc appointment in short term vacancies could still be made by the Committee of Management under Regulation 9 of Chapter 11 of the Regulations made under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which not being inconsistent to the provisions the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act. 1982, can be resorted to by virtue of Section 32 thereof.
( 4 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 and the regulations made therein in so far as they are not Inconsistent with the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act, 1982, or the rules made thereunder continue to be in force by virtue of Section 32 of the latter Act. for the purposes of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal, removal, termination, reduction in rank of a teacher. Let us therefore, examine whether appointment of the petitioner can be Justified with the aid of Regulation 9 of chapter II of the Regulations made under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921. reliance on which has been placed by Sri S. N. Srivastava during the course of arguments. Regulation 9 reads as under:
"9. (1) Where a vacancy in the post of teacher is caused by grant of leave to him for a period exceeding six months or where
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
