Back
2003 Supreme(All) 1905
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vineet Saran, J.
Ram Prakash Dubey
Versus
District Inspector of Schools
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 22634 of 1992
Decided On : 09 September 2003
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 22634 Of 1992
K.Shahi, N.S.DIXIT, R.C.DWIVEDI, R.S.MISHRA, RAVI PRATAP SINGH,
The validity of an appointment and entitlement to salary as an Assistant Teacher are determined based on the appointment process, submission of supporting documents, and approval by the relevant authorities.
Headnote:
Appointment - Validity of Appointment - [Education, Appointment, Salary] - [Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 6] - The court discussed the validity of the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in an educational institution, considering the appointment process, submission of supporting documents, and the authority's approval. The court upheld the appointment of the respondent as Assistant Teacher based on the resolution of the Committee of Management and the submission of relevant documents. The court also addressed the issue of salary payment and found that the respondent was entitled to payment as an Assistant Teacher from the date of his appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two writ petitions filed by the petitioner, challenging the appointment of another individual as Assistant Teacher and seeking payment of salary as Assistant Teacher.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the respondent as Assistant Teacher was valid based on the resolution of the Committee of Management and the submission of relevant documents. The court also determined that the respondent was entitled to payment as an Assistant Teacher from the date of his appointment.
Issues: Validity of appointment, entitlement to salary as Assistant Teacher
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment based on a proper resolution and submission of relevant documents is valid. The entitlement to salary as an Assistant Teacher is determined based on the appointment date and supporting certification.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
( 1 ) SINCE, common questions arise in these two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 22634 of 1992 shall be treated as the leading case.
( 2 ) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 22634 of 1992 has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 1. 6. 1992 passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby approval for the appointment of Prem Shanker Dixit, respondent No. 3, has been accorded with effect from 3. 3. 1985 and the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the said post has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as ad-hoc teacher in C. T. /l. T. Grade. The other writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32435 of 1991, has been filed by the same petitioner Ram Pravesh Dubey with a prayer for a direction to pay him the salary as Assistant Teacher along with the arrears with effect from 26. 4. 1986 and also a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to accord financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner.
( 3 ) THE facts in brief giving rise to these writ petitions are that on the death of one Sri Surya Nath singh, an Assistant Teacher in Maninath Inter College, Deoria on 13. 2. 1984, a substantive vacancy arose of which due intimation was given by the Committee of Management to the district Inspector of Schools. Since no appointment had been made, the Committee of management vide its resolution dated 3. 3. 1985 appointed Prem Shanker Dixit, respondent No. 3, as Assistant Teacher in the institution. The said respondent No. 3 Prem Shanker Dixit, was earlier working as Assistant Clerk in the institution. Subsequently, the Constitution of the committee of Management changed and it is the case of the petitioner that the new Committee of Management cancelled the appointment of the respondent No. 3 Prem Shanker Dixit by its order dated 14. 4. 1986 and resolved to appoint the petitioner as ad-hoc Teacher in his place. The appointment letter in favour of the petitioner was issued on 22. 4. 1986 and it is alleged that the petitioner joined on the said post on 26. 4. 1986.
( 4 ) THE petitioner Ram Pravesh Dubey, thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 32435 of 1991 in which an interim direction was issued on 17. 2. 1992 commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner or to show cause. The District Inspector of Schools filed a counter-affidavit in this writ petition stating that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of salary as he was not validly appointed.
( 5 ) HOWEVER, Prem Shanker Dixit, respondent No. 3, had been pursuing his claim for payment of salary claiming that he had been validly appointed by the Committee of Management on 3. 3. 1985. With such prayer, he had filed Writ Petition No. 18772 of 1990 which was disposed of vide order dated 25. 7. 1990 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the claim of Prem Shanker Dixit (petitioner in the said writ petition and respondent No. 3 herein)within two months. The impugned order dated 1. 6. 1992 has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of such direction passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18772 of 1990. The said order has admittedly been passed by the District Inspector of Schools after hearing Ram Pravesh Dubey (petitioner herein), Prem Shanker Dixit (respondent No. 3 herein)as well as the Committee of Management.
( 6 ) I have heard Sri R. S. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents; Sri R. C. Dwivedi for the Committee of management; and Sri Ravi Pratap, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 3 Prem Shanker Dixit and also perused the record including the impugned order.
( 7 ) SRI R. S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the said order of the district Inspector of Schools
