DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH vs STATE OF U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(All) 1181

[2012(6) ADJ 355 (LB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : ANIL KUMAR, J.
DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Service Single Nos. 3053, 2943, 2947, 2953, 2960, 2989, 2992, 2994, 3002, 3004, 3005, 3015, 3013, 3027, 3033, 3034, 2974, 2982, 2946, 2991, 3090, 2941 of 2008, 4495 of 2000, 3028, 3029, 3031, 2935, 6316, 3091, 2949, 2972, 3127, 3022, 3934, 2942, 3003, 3114, 2978, 3095, 6592, 2976, 6662, 2937, 2952, 2954, 2959, 2964, 2973, 3104, 3108, 3012, 3041, 2877, 3006, 3109, 3122, 3097, 2957, 2739, 3074, 2997, 3106, 3021, 2951, 2983, 3123, 3009, 3026, 3124, 3035, 3051, 3068, 3093, 3000, 6855, 3008, 2945, 2948, 6853, 2950, 3567, 6574, 3010, 2740, 3024, 6618, 6856, 2936, 3014, 3020, 2967, 3050, 3019, 6409, 3016, 2938, 2984, 2939, 3036, 3023, 2979, 3043, 3001, 3039, 2944, 2993, 2136, 2977, 2986, 2958, 3096, 3037, 3098, 6586 of 2008, 7198, 7843 of 2005, 10444, 10162 of 2006, 225, 764, 907, 983, 762, 905, 18, 919, 906, 904, 1000, 944, 986, 195, 412, 943, 763 of 2007, 3113, 3094, 6595, 8309, 3011, 6448 of 2008, 5590 of 2007, 2836 of 2005, 1378, 1413, 1473, 1673, 2171, 2802, 3310, 5960 of 2006, 4914, 5057, 6439 of 2007, 9824, 9842 of 2006, 290 of 2009, 3261 of 2005, 4199 of 1997, 7477 of 2009, decided on 3rd May, 2012)

Advocates:
Counsel :
H.G.S. Parihar, Nagendra B. Singh, A.S. Parihar, S.P. Singh, P.K. Singh Vats, Krishan K Singh, Dr L.P. Misra, Sanjay Misra, M.S. Rathore, Shiv Shanker, Pt S Chandra, G.C.Verma, Ajay Pratap Singh, Alok Kumar Pandey, Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Sharad Pathak, Ramesh Pandey, Ajay Pratap Singh, S.P. Pandey, D.P.S.Chauhan, Vinod Kumar Singh, Suraj Saran, Akhilesh Chauhan, Suyra Bhan Singh, J.K Shukla, Dileep K Misra, I.P. Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh ‘Raj’, Ramesh Singh, A Moin, Abhinav N Trivedi, Mohd. Islam Khan, Pramod K Singh, S.S. Rajawat, Mahendra Singh Rathore, Dileep Misra, Krishan Kumar Singh, Shiv P. Shukla, Sharad Tiwari, Ram Pratap Singh, V B Kalia, G.S.Tripathi, Vinay Tripathi, D N Dubey, V.P. Sharma, Diwaker Singh Kaushik, P.K. Khare, for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Daya Shanekr Tiwari, Nagendra B Singh, R K S Suryvanshi, Alok Sinha, Satish Kumar Singh, Diwakar Singh Kaushik, N. Jain, Shiv Kumar,V. Misra, H S Jain, D K Mishra and Abhya Kumar for the Respondents.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982—Section 16(1)— U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921—Section 16-E(II)—Selection—Assistant Teacher/Lecturer in L.T. Grade—Power of Committee of Management—Determination of—Held, Committee of Management had got no power whatsoever to make selection on the post of Assistant Teacher/Lecturer in L.T. Grade against a substantive vacancy or a vacancy which had been converted into substantive one—Power to make selection against the said vacancy vested only with Selection Board duly constituted for purpose—State Authorities not committed any illegality in not paying salary to Assistant Teacher/Lecturers, who were appointed against substantive vacancy or short-term vacancy which subsequently converted into substantive vacancy on ad hoc basis by the Committee of Management. [Paras 100 and 111]
       (B) Appointment—Assistant teacher—Once a vacancy converted into substantive vacancy, a teacher who was appointed by the Committee of Management on the Ad hoc basis, had no right to continue on the post in question. [Para 105]
       (C) Interpretation of Statute—Every part of the statute must be interpreted keeping in view the context in which it appears and the purpose of legislation. [Para 84]

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Sri M.B. Singh, Pt. S. Chandra, Sri M.S. Rathour, Sri Ramesh Pandey, Sri Sanjay Mishra, Sri S.P. Singh, Sri G.C. Verma, Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, Sri R.P. Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri V.S. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.

2. The role of teachers in society is both significant and of widespread value. They had influenced the society they lived in and no other personalities had a greater influence than the teachers. Students are strongly influenced by teacher’s love, compassion, character, competence, and moral commitment. A popular teacher is one who becomes a role model for his students. Often the students try to follow their teachers in their behavior, dress, etiquette, conversational style, and way of living. He’s their ideal.

3. The importance of teachers as architects of our future generations demands that only the best, most intelligent and competent members of our intellectuals are allowed to qualify for this noble profession. But, it is unfortunate to find that in general the worst and most incapable people find their way into this profession. Anyone who fails to find an open road in life, gets into this profession and starts recklessly playing with the fate of nation.

4. In the instant matters, the controversy involved is in respect to the petitioners who are Assistant Teachers or Lecturers selected in Intermediate colleges situated in different cities of the State of U.P. as ad hoc teacher on substantive vacancy or short term vacancy which were subsequently converted into substantive vacancy by the Committee of Management. However, approval of their appointments has been refused by District Inspector of Schools concerned either expressly or impliedly, thus they were not paid the salary as matter regarding payment of salary has been rejected by the D.I.O.S. and for the said grievances they approached this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances i.e. for payment of salary.

5. So far as the educational qualification and other eligibility criteria of the petitioners in respect of holding the post of Assistant Teacher/Lecturer is concerned, it is not an issue in the present case, but the only question involved in the present matter is whether the committee of Management of the various institutions situated throughout the State of U.P. have got power to make ad hoc selection against substantive vacancy or not.

6. Before dealing with the issue in question, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and Regulations and Rules framed under these Acts. Relevant portion of the same are reporduced as under :

“1. The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921

16-E. Procedure for selection of teachers and head of institutions.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Head of Institution and teachers of an institution shall be appointed by the Committee of Management in the manner hereinafter provided.

(2) Every post of Head of Institution or teacher of an institution shall except to the extent prescribed for being filled by promotion, be filled by direct requirement after intimation of the vacancy to the Inspector and advertisement of the vacancy containing such particulars as may be prescribed, in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in the State.

(3) No person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or teacher in an institution unless he possess the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Regulations:

Provided that a person who does not possess such qualification may also be appointed if he has been granted exemption by the Board having regard to his education, experience and other attainments.

(4) Every application for appointment as Head of Institution or t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(All) 1181

Cases Referred (62)