Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. M. Sahai, J.
PATIL RAM YADAV - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 8166 Of 1994
Decided On : 10/06/1999
UP HIGH COURT - APPOINTMENT OF UNTRAINED TEACHERS - SERVICES OF UNTRAINED TEACHERS IN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - UPGRADING OF INSTITUTION - APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS - ABSORPTION OF TEACHERS - INTERPRETATION OF GOVERNMENT ORDERS AND REGULATIONS - LEGALITY OF APPOINTMENTS - CONTINUANCE OF SERVICES - ENTITLEMENT TO SALARY - REGULARISATION - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - APPLICABILITY OF RULES AND REGULATIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS - EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - TEACHERS' SERVICE CONDITIONS - SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES - MAINTENANCE GRANTS - UPGRADING OF SCHOOLS - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS - QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING - REGULARISATION OF SERVICES - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND REGULATIONS - JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - EQUITY AND JUSTICE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - EDUCATION LAW - EMPLOYMENT LAW - CONTRACT LAW - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - WRIT JURISDICTION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - LEGALITY - REASONABLENESS - FAIRNESS - NATURAL JUSTICE - INTERIM ORDERS - STAY ORDERS - COSTS - LEGAL PRINCIPLES - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES - DUTIES AND POWERS - LIABILITY OF MANAGEMENT - SANCTIONED STRENGTH - COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS - TIME LIMITS - DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS - ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDERS - CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as untrained teachers in a junior high school in 1972. The institution was upgraded to a high school in 1974 and came on the grants-in-aid list in 1978. The petitioners' salaries were stopped after the provisions of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (Salaries Act) became applicable. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the stoppage of their salaries and seeking regularisation of their services.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners' appointments were in accordance with the Government order issued in 1971, which permitted the appointment of untrained teachers permanently. The court further held that the petitioners' services could not be terminated or deemed to have come to an end except in accordance with law. The court also held that the petitioners were entitled to be absorbed in the high school under Regulation 4 of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 (Act), as they had acquired the necessary qualifications during service.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' appointments as untrained teachers in a junior high school were legal and valid? 2. Whether the petitioners' services could be terminated or deemed to have come to an end after the institution was upgraded to a high school and came on the grants-in-aid list? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to be absorbed in the high school under Regulation 4 of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners' appointments were legal and valid as they were made in accordance with the Government order issued in 1971, which permitted the appointment of untrained teachers permanently. 2. The court held that the petitioners' services could not be terminated or deemed to have come to an end after the institution was upgraded to a high school and came on the grants-in-aid list, as their appointments were permanent and could only be terminated in accordance with law. 3. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to be absorbed in the high school under Regulation 4 of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the Act, as they had acquired the necessary qualifications during service.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, quashed the orders of the Additional Director of Education (Secondary) dated 18.2.1994, and directed the respondents to absorb the petitioners in the high school and pay them their salaries accordingly.
( 1 ) THE question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether services of the petitioners who were appointed as untrained teachers, in junior high school in 1972, and have worked continuously since then, could be deemed to have come to an end after the institution was upgraded and came on grants-in-aid list because they were not trained teachers on the date of their appointment even though they acquired the necessary qualification and became trained teachers during service with permission of the authorities either after up-gradation of the institution or its coming on grants-in-aid list in 1978.
( 2 ) SHRI Krishan Vidyapeeth Uchchatar Madhyamik Vldyalaya, Chirraiya Kot. Mau (in brief institution), was granted recognition as Junior High School in 1971. On 10. 3. 1971 the State government issued an order clause 5 of which permitted appointment of untrained teachers in junior high schools, subject to the condition that the appointee obtained training certificate within five years otherwise he would be entitled to the initial salary only. The petitioners were appointed as permanent assistant teachers in the institution after coming into force of this order in 1971-72. All of them were untrained. Sri Pati Ram Yadav was intermediate only. Others were graduate or postgraduate. The institution was granted recognition in 1974, under Section 7 of the u. P. Intermediate Act. 1921 (In brief Act), to impart education to high school. But the maintenance grant, was sanctioned in 1978. As a consequence of it the institution came under the purview of U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (in brief Salaries Act ). Till 1978 there was no dispute. But after the provisions of Salaries Act became applicable, the salaries of petitioners was stopped. Sri Pati ram Yadav filed Writ Petition No. 7068 of 1978, before this Court, in which on 8. 2. 1979 a stay order was passed directing payment of salary to the petitioner. In compliance of the order the salary of the petitioner was paid and he continued. But it appears as a result of filing of the writ petition the management referred the dispute about payment of his salary to the District Inspector of Schools (In brief DIGS) who by his order dated 1. 12. 1980 held that the petitioner was entitled to trained LT grade. But this order was recalled on 17. 3. 1981 and the petitioner was placed in CT grade. And payment of salary was stopped again. The petitioner consequently filed another Writ petition No. 8743 of 1981 wherein this Court, on 6. 5. 1983. again passed stay order in favour of the petitioner and salary of the petitioner was paid from June 1981 to February 1987. On 4. 3. 1987 the stay orders passed in both the Writ Petition No. 7068 of 1978 and Writ Petition No. 8743 of 1981 were vacated and the petitions were decided on 12. 3. 1993. directing the Director of education (in brief DE) to pass orders in accordance with law with regard to the grievance of the petitioner either himself or through his nominee within a period of three months. The petitioner along with the Judgment dated 12. 3. 1993 made a representation to the DE on 12. 4. 1993. He nominated Additional Director of Education (Secondary), (in brief ADE) to decide the claim of the petitioner. The ADE called for a report from the D. I. O. S. , Mau. who submitted his report on 14. 12. 1993 recommending that orders should be passed with regard to payment of salary of the petitioner. The report has been filed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. In this report he held the management quietly for not taking steps for absorption of the petitioner under Chapter II regulation 4 of the Regulations framed under the Act. But the ADE rejected the claim of the petitioner on 18. 2. 1994. He held that on the date of appointment in 1972 the petitioner was only intermediate and untrained and his appointment was not approved, therefore, he was not eligib
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
