Back
2005 Supreme(All) 2324
[2006(1) ADJ 124 (All)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Division Bench)
BEFORE : S. RAFAT ALAM AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
SHANTI PRASAD SINGH ......Petitioner
Versus
JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ALLAHABAD REGION, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Special Appeal No. 45 of 2004, decided on 2nd December, 2005)
Counsel :
Radha Kant Ojha and Satyanshu Ojha for the Petitioner; Dr. R.G. Padia, V.K. Singh, P. Padia, Sher Singh, G.D. Mishra, D.P. Singh and S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:Appointment—Lecturer from post of L.T. Grade teacher in college—Five sanctioned posts of Lecturers therein—Claim by petitioner-appellant, for promotion on post of Lecturer, alleging that said vacancy falls under 50% promotion quota—Grounds that respondent 4, a Lecturer of another college, was transferred to that college on post of Lecturer—And that he was relative of Manager of that college—Dismissal of petition by Single Judge—Appeal against—Chapter III, Regulation 4, was not attracted, while making appointment of a teacher by transfer from one recognised Institution to another recognised Institution—Therefore, plea of appellant that transfer of respondent 4 was impermissible, as he was related to Manager of Committee of Management, cannot be accepted—Hence, appeal liable to be dismissed. [U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921—Sections 16, 16-G and 16-GG—Regulations framed thereunder Regulations 1, 4, 10, 55 to 62—U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982—Sections 10, 2(1) and 16—U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998—Rules 10, 11(1), 14(1), (2) and 6]. [Paras 14, 25 to 28]
By the Court—We have heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Prakash Padia appearing for respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19th December, 2003 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Janardan Sahai; dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the appeal are : the appellant was appointed as L.T. Grade teacher in Sardar Patel Inter College, Sikora, Koraon, District Allahabad. There are five sanctioned posts of lecturer in the college. One Doodh Nath Verma, lecturer History retired on 30th June, 2000 causing a substantive vacancy with effect from 1st July, 2000. The appellant claimed his promotion on the post of lecturer History alleging that the said vacancy falls under 50% promotion quota. Grievance of the appellant was that respondent No. 4, Awadhesh Kumar Singh, who was working as lecturer in another college at Shahjahanpur, was transferred to Sardar Patel Inter College on the post of lecturer History, which is illegal. It was further alleged that respondent No. 4 being relative of the manager of the committee of management, his transfer is impermissible. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the post of lecturer History does not fall under promotion quota and is a post required to be filled up by direct recruit, hence the appellant has no right for consideration of promotion. Learned single Judge further held that the transfer of respondent No. 4 is not hit by Section 16GG of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 since the prohibition of relatives mentioned in Schedule- II of the Intermediate Education Act is only applicable while giving substantive appointment to the teachers appointed within the period as mentioned in Section 16GG.
4. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant, raised following submissions in support of the appeal :
(i) Apart from post of lecturer History which fell vacant on retirement of Doodh Nath Singh on 30th June, 2000 another post of lecturer Hindi also fell vacant on 30th June, 2001 by retirement of Harish Chandra Singh, thus, out of these two posts one post was to be filled up by promotion and one post was to be direct recruit and the appellant being the seniormost lecturer working in the institution, the post of lecturer History for which the appellant is qualified for promotion should be treated to be under 50% promotion quota.
(ii) Learned single Judge has wrongly implemented roster policy in determining the post to be filled up by direct recruitment or by promotion since there is no provision under law for implementing the roster policy.
(iii) Respondent No. 4 being son-in-law of the manager of the committee of management, he could not have been appointed by transfer.
5. Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, submitted that post of lecturer History fell vacant on 30th June, 2000 and at that time three posts of lecturer, namely, Economics, Sanskrit and Hindi were filled up by promotion. The post which fell vacant on 30th June, 2000 by retirement of lecturter (History) was a post which fell under direct recruitment quota. At the relevant time only one post of lecturer, i.e., lecturer (Sociology) was under direct recruitment quota. The post of lecturer (History) being not under 50% promotion quota, the appellant has no right to claim any promotion. The fact that respondent No. 4 is son-in-law of the present manager is not relevant since respondent No. 4 has already been selected and appointed by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board and the prohibition of non-appointment of relative is not attracted when a post is filled up by transfer.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the committee of management adopted the same argument as advanced by counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.
7. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8.
