Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.P.Srivastava
DINGUR
Versus
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS MIRZAPUR
Decided On : 02 June 1997
C M. W. P No. 9195 of 1997
U. P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT - REGULATION 101 - PRIOR APPROVAL FOR APPOINTMENT - VALIDITY - FINANCIAL LIABILITY OF STATE - CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL - DELAY IN GRANTING APPROVAL - PROCEDURE FOR FILLING UP VACANCY - ADVERTISEMENT ON NOTICE BOARD - CONSTITUTIONALITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, appointed as a peon in a recognized intermediate college, sought payment of salary and arrears from the date of joining. The appointment was made by the Principal, who is the appointing authority, after following the prescribed procedure and selecting the petitioner as the most suitable candidate. However, the District Inspector of Schools (DIS) had not granted prior approval for the appointment as required under Regulation 101 of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act.
Finding of the Court:
1. Regulation 101 of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, which mandates prior approval from the DIS for filling up vacancies in non-teaching staff positions in recognized institutions receiving grant-in-aid, is valid and does not suffer from any constitutional or other invalidity. 2. The State Government has a statutory duty to ensure that there is no wasteful expenditure of public money and that appointments are made in accordance with the law and regulations. 3. The DIS has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of appointments and withhold recognition if financial approval has not been obtained. 4. Regulation 101 ensures that no financial liability is cast upon the State for appointments made without prior approval from the DIS. 5. Prior approval under Regulation 101 must be granted or refused after examining the appointment proceedings and ensuring compliance with the prescribed procedure and eligibility criteria. 6. Delay in granting approval for necessary appointments is detrimental to the institution and public interest. 7. The procedure adopted by the Principal for filling up the vacancy, which involved only a notice on the college notice board, was inadequate and did not conform to the requirement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution for equal opportunity. 8. The appointment of the petitioner could not be approved due to the fatal defect in the procedure adopted for selecting the candidate.
Issues: 1. Whether Regulation 101 of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act is valid and constitutional. 2. Whether the State Government has a duty to ensure that there is no wasteful expenditure of public money on appointments. 3. Whether the DIS has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of appointments and withhold recognition if financial approval has not been obtained. 4. Whether Regulation 101 ensures that no financial liability is cast upon the State for appointments made without prior approval from the DIS. 5. Whether prior approval under Regulation 101 must be granted or refused after examining the appointment proceedings and ensuring compliance with the prescribed procedure and eligibility criteria. 6. Whether delay in granting approval for necessary appointments is detrimental to the institution and public interest. 7. Whether the procedure adopted by the Principal for filling up the vacancy was adequate and conformed to the requirement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution for equal opportunity. 8. Whether the appointment of the petitioner could be approved despite the fatal defect in the procedure adopted for selecting the candidate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regulation 101 of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act is valid and constitutional as it ensures that no financial liability is cast upon the State for appointments made without prior approval from the DIS. 2. The State Government has a statutory duty to ensure that there is no wasteful expenditure of public money and that appointments are made in accordance with the law and regulations. 3. The DIS has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of appointments and withhold recognition if financial approval has not been obtained. 4. Prior approval under Regulation 101 must be granted or refused after examining the appointment proceedings and ensuring compliance with the prescribed procedure and eligibility criteria. 5. Delay in granting approval for necessary appointments is detrimental to the institution and public interest. 6. The procedure adopted by the Principal for filling up the vacancy, which involved only a notice on the college notice board, was inadequate and did not conform to the requirement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution for equal opportunity. 7. The appointment of the petitioner could not be approved due to the fatal defect in the procedure adopted for selecting the candidate.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner's appointment could not be approved due to the fatal defect in the procedure adopted for selecting the candidate.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respon dent Nos. 1 and 4.
2. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner has by means of the present writ petition approached this Court seeking a direction requiring the respondents which include besides the District In spector of Schools, Mirzapur and State of U. P. through Collector, Mirzapur, the Com mittee of Management, Maharana Pratap Adarsh Inter College Sati Dhampuria, Chunar as well as the Principal of the said college, requiring them to pay salary to the petitioner for the post of Peon month to month as and when it falls due together with the arrears with effect from 9-10-1996.
4. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. Maharana Pratap Adarsh Inter College, Sati Dham Raipuria, Chunar, district Mirzapur is an educational institution which stands recognised under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. This institution also falls within the purview of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971) It is asserted that a vacancy in the post of a peon in the college became available for being filled up on ac count of promotion and when the informa tion in regard to this availability of the vacancy for being filled up was sent by the management to the District Inspector of Schools with a request for granting permis sion to fill up the same, the District Inspec tor of Schools issued an order on 10-9-1996 approving of the promotion and permitting the filling up of the resultant vacancy in the post of a peon in the next below cadre sub ject to the conditions that the appointment be made in accordance with the relevant rules and orders in regard to the reserva tions. It is further asserted that on the strength of the aforesaid order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the Principal of the college who is the appointing authority for the post of a peon placed a notice on the notice board of the college on 15-9-1996 inviting applications for appoint ment on the post of peon. This mode of advertisement adopted by the Principal of the college could attract only four persons including the petitioner who submitted his application for appointment on the post of peon in the college. It is claimed that an interview was held on 4-10-1996 wherein the petitioner was found to be most suitable candidate and the petitioner who belonged to a backward class was selected for appoint ment on the post in question. The principal vide his order dated 4-10-1996 appointed the petitioner as the Peon filling up the vacancy, pursuant to the appointment let ter, the petitioner was allowed to join the post 9- 10-1996. It is claimed that with effect from 9th October, 1996, the petitioner has continuously been working as peon in the college but even though all the papers in regard to the selection proceedings had been submitted to the District Inspector of Schools, he was not being paid any salary even though the District Inspector of Schools has not passed any order disapprov ing the appointment of the petitioner.
5. On 20th March, 1997, the petitioner moved an application seeking various amendments in the writ petition asserting that there is no provision under the Inter mediate Education Act or the Regulations framed there under requiring any approval regarding appointment of a person on a post filling in class IV. It was further asserted that Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act does not con template that after the District Inspector of Schools had granted approval for filling up the vacancy any further approval regarding the appointment was necessary or required. It is also asserted that Section 16-E of the Act provides for recruitment of only teacher and head of
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
