Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Irshad Ali, J.
Sant Ram - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Through Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. & Ors. - Respondent
SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2207 of 2013
Decided On : 21-01-2021
U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Teachers) Rules, 1978 – Rules 7, 10 – U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 – Claim for appointment – By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order whereby his claim for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Scheduled Caste) as well as claim for payment of salary has been rejected.
Finding of the court: It is evident that the DBEO appears to be interested in selection of Ramesh Chandra, therefore, without going through the earlier order of cancellation of advertisement and to make fresh selection against the scheduled caste vacancy, has proceeded to record perverse and illegal finding that Ramesh Chandra was entitled for consideration for selection in the fresh selection proceeding although he did not apply in pursuance to the second advertisement. – It reveals that similar reasons have been assigned that the petitioner -Santram was not liable to be issued appointment letter by Manager of the institution on 08.03.2010. – Court have perused the contents of the writ petition made in paragraph-11, which recites that the committee of management submitted papers – Reply to the same has been given in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit and in paragraph-10 of the supplementary counter affidavit, which admits that papers were received in the office of DBEO on 18.01.2010 but without any material on record it has been stated that same were returned to the Manager of the institution without disclosing any date. – Court have perused the order, which was passed earlier, annexed at page-58, wherein it has been admitted that letter was made available to the office of DBEO – It clearly demonstrates that the statement made in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit and page -10 of supplementary counter affidavit do not corroborate with the letter dated 24.02.2010 and it appears that only to dislodge the claim of the petitioner of deemed approval, a concocted story has been framed by the DBEO. – If this was the position, then clear cut statement of fact would have been made in the statement given along with counter affidavits. – Thus, the claim setup by the DBEO in the counter affidavits is not acceptable in law – Impugned order suffers from apparent illegality and cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
Result: – Writ Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
Irshad Ali, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 04.03.2013, whereby his claim for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Scheduled Caste) as well as claim for payment of salary has been rejected.
3. Brief fact of the case is that there is an institution in the name of Janta Nimna Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Byoli, Islamabad, District Unnao, which is recognized under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and is receiving grant in aid from the State Government, thus, the provisions of U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 as well as the provisions of The U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Teachers) Rules, 1978 are applicable to the said institution.
4. In the institution, there are six sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers including the post of Head Master. Two teachers namely Ram Khelawan and Jagat Narayan retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2001 and 30.06.2007, respectively. The committee of management filled aforesaid two vacancies under the category of Other Backward Class (OBC) and Scheduled Caste (SC) and requested to the District Basic Education Officer (for short, 'DBEO') for grant of prior approval to initiate selection proceeding vide letter dated 23.07.2009 in view of the provisions contained under Rule 7(3) of the amended Rules of 1978.
5. The DBEO granted permission to issue advertisement inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates. In compliance of the order of DBEO, vacancies were advertised in two newspapers inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates in the year 2009 fixing date for interview on 25.10.2009.
6. Several candidates under OBC category as well as Scheduled Castes Category applied for in pursuance to the advertisement issued. The selection committee selected to Sri Saurabh Kumar under OBC Category and Sri Santram under Scheduled Castes Category on the basis of quality point marks.
7. Papers were submitted before the DBEO for grant of approval to the selection on 28.10.2009. The DBEO accorded approval to the appointment made under OBC category and rejected the appointment made under Scheduled Castes Category vide letter dated 11.11.2009 on the ground that the appointment was not in accordance with law.
8. In pursuance to the order of DBEO, vacancies were re-advertised on 17.12.2009 inviting applications for selection under Scheduled Castes Category. The advertisement is part of the writ petition as annexure-5. In pursuance to the advertisement, seven candidates applied including the petitioner and the selection committee selected the petitioner and placed him at serial No.1 under Scheduled Castes Category.
9. The papers were submitted for approval as required under Rule 10 before the DBEO on 18.01.2010. The DBEO did not pass the order disapproving or approving the selection neither raised any objection in regard to the selection for a period of one month.
10. In the meantime, a complaint was lodged by one Ramesh Chandra on 29.12.2009 before the DBOE to the effect that the committee of management without permitting him to participate in the selection proceeding has proceeded to make selection in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner.
11. The complaint was entertained and by means of order dated 25.10.2010, the DBEO rejected the selection proceeding holding that no information in regard to selection was given to him. The proceeding was initiated in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner and candidature of the complainant Ramesh Chandra has illegally been not considered.
12. The order passed by the DBEO was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petit
Point of law: If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded a....
The appointments were found to be void ab initio due to the lack of essential qualifications and the flawed selection process.
The judgment establishes the principle that public officers must act reasonably and responsibly in their official duties, conforming to the rule of law. It also emphasizes the importance of ensuring ....
The main legal point established is that the deeming clause for approval under Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 does not apply when the competent authority has communicated a decision to withhol....
The court established that the absence of a nominee from the DBEO in the selection committee invalidates the appointment process, and that the provisions of the Act 1921 apply to institutions upgrade....
Deemed approval for teacher appointments under Rule 10(5) of U.P. recruitment rules entitles the petitioner to salary from the date of its occurrence, especially after the institution is recognized u....
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
