Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shabihul Hasnain, J.
Sanjay Singh -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.and Others -Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3348 (S/S) of 2012 Connected with Writ Petition Nos. 227, 235, 260, 261, 350, 408, 1959, 3166, 3167, 3179, 3186, 3191, 3192, 3195, 3193, 3195, 3196, 3198, 3209, 3210, 3211, 3214, 3229, 3279, 3471, 3473, 3474, 3398, 3395, 3392, 3323, 3322, 3347, 3345, 3341, 3340, 3339, 3337. 3338, 3336, 3335, 3333, 3332, 3330, 3325, 3324, 3313,3312, 3311, 3327, 3360, 3361, 3365, 3363, 3358, 3356, 3354, 3353, 3352, 3351, 3350, 3369, 3396, 3378, 3377, 3374, 3371, 3370, 3393, 3390, 3389, 3387, 3384, 3381, 3379, 3423, 3421, 3418, 3368, 3367, 3412, 3411, 3410, 3399, 3394, 4328,3417, 3414, 3415, 3403, 3419, 3420, 3402, 3400, 3317, 3315, 3409, 3408, 3407, 3405, 3404, 3416, 3424, 3406, 3314, 3329, 3486, 3334, 3373, 3476, 5391, 5474, 5581, 5795, 5829, 5864, 5877, 5900, 5941, 5966, 5977, 5981, 5692, 5608, 5736, 5847, 5849, 5861, 5863, 5870, 5878, 5580, 5738, 5911, 5931, 5952, 5589, 5591, 5580, 5601, 5607, 5608, 5579, 5527, 5838, 5540, 5547, 5571, 5798, 5801, 5695, 5686, 5672, 5675, 5696, 5870, 6752, 5874, 5876, 5935, 5918, 5906, 5865, 5862 (S/S) of 2012, 8062 (S/S) of 2011 and 7029 (S/S) of 2010
Decided On : 14-02-2013
Appointment - Education - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Selection Board Act, 1982, U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 - The court examined the power of the committee of management to make ad-hoc appointments against substantive vacancies, the failure to appoint teachers for 4 to 5 years, the obligation of the court to protect constitutional provisions, and the need to address the issue of education suffering due to procedural delays.
Fact of the Case:
The controversy involved Assistant Teachers or Lecturers or Ad-hoc teachers on 'substantive vacancies' or 'short term vacancies' in Intermediate Colleges in U.P. The District Inspector of Schools refused approval of their appointments, leading to non-payment of salary. The petitioners approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the committee of management does not have the power to make ad-hoc appointments on permanent vacancies. It expressed concern over the non-appointment of teachers in time and the failure of the State to take necessary action. The court emphasized the obligation to protect and advance constitutional provisions, especially in the context of education being a fundamental right.
Issues: The issues involved the power of the committee of management to make ad-hoc appointments, the failure to appoint teachers for 4 to 5 years, the obligation of the court to protect constitutional provisions, and the need to address the issue of education suffering due to procedural delays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the committee of management does not have the power to make ad-hoc appointments on permanent vacancies. It emphasized the obligation of the court to protect and advance constitutional provisions, especially in the context of education being a fundamental right. The court also directed the District Inspector of Schools to make payment of salary to the petitioners as a stop-gap arrangement until regularly selected candidates are made available by the 'Board'.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent mentioned above, and the court directed the District Inspector of Schools to make payment of salary to the petitioners as a stop-gap arrangement until regularly selected candidates are made available by the 'Board'.
Heard Sarva Sri H. G. S. Parihar, Anupam Mehrotra, Ramesh Pandey, Sanjay Misra, Manjeev Shukla, Pt. S. Chandra and N. B. Singh for the petitioners.
It was generally agreed that arguments of these lawyers may be adopted in all the writ petitions. Matter was argued for many days and the opposite parties also replied at length.
Learned Additional Advocate General Ms. Bulbul Godiyal assisted by learned Additional Chief Standing counsel Sri Sameer Kalia and Sri R. K. S. Suryavansahi have been heard for the respondents.
"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,.."
thus had cried the Prince of Denmark in 'Hamlet', a historical play by Shakespeare. The words echo the troubled conscience of the Prince who was caught in the dilemma of action and non-action. Similarly, this Court is faced with the question :-
Whether; in a vibrant democracy like India 'Judiciary' has to play the role of a helpless sleeping partner for lack of adequate legislation or to decide matters proactively for achieving the goals and objects set out in our Constitution ? This is the question arising out of the present petition for consideration before this Court.
In the present case, the controversy involved is in respect to the petitioners who are Assistant Teachers or Lecturers or Ad-hoc teachers on 'substantive vacancies' or 'short term vacancies' which were subsequently converted into substantive vacancies by the committee of management selected in Intermediate Colleges situated in different parts of the State of U.P. However, approval of their appointments has been refused by the District Inspector of Schools (in short D.I.O.S.) concerned either expressly or implicitly. The respondents say that after coming of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act 1982; the committee of management has lost its right of selection of candidates to be appointed as Assistant Teachers or Lecturers. Thus, they have not been paid salary. Being aggrieved by their non-payment of salary, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the educational qualifications and other eligibility criteria of the petitioners in respect of holding the post of Assistant Tea hers/Lecturers is concerned, it is not in issue in the present case. On the other hand, the committee of management insists that since the Board has not been able to send selected candidates even after four years of requisition, they have made these appointments to save the students and their education. They add that their intentions are bonafide and in the best interest of students, education, constitution and democracy of this country.
It may be noteworthy to point out here that this is not a new matter but after inclusion of Article 21-A in the Constitution of India, the grounds taken by the petitioners have acquired new dimensions. Prima facie, it appears that the only question involved in this matter is regarding the power of the committee of management. But the pleas taken in this particular petition and the line of arguments taken by the petitioners have forced this Court to examine the matter in a broader perspective. Following position emerges:-
1.One question involved in this petition is whether the committee of management of the various institutions have got power to make ad-hoc appointment against substantive vacancies or not ?
2.Corollary to this question is; as to what happens if the provisions of law and the 'institutions' mentioned therein are unable to deliver and fail to appoint teachers for 4 to 5 years or more ?
3.Whether the Court sitting under Article 226 is under any obligation to protect and advance the constitutional provisions or to keep protecting the statutory rules and regulations which have failed to serve their purpose ? Should the education be crucified at the altar of procedur
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
