Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.
State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Madhyamik Shiksha Vibhag and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Anurag Gupta And Anr. – Respondents
Special Appeal Defective No. 120 of 2021
Decided On : 05-05-2022
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Chapter VIII, Rule 5 - Special Appeal - Condonation of delay of 54 days - Appeal has been filed by State authorities against judgment and order - Petitioner possessed eligibility qualification on said date, he was given re-appointment in pursuance of some agreement, without advertising post and without obtaining requisite sanction/approval from authority concerned as required by law(Para 30).
Findings of Court :
Petitioner’s appointment/re-appointment was not made in accordance with law and manager of college had himself stated on oath before State authorities that petitioner was not included amongst teachers working as per standard, Court are of a considered opinion that no direction could be issued to include petitioner’s name in list of teachers of college for bringing it on Grant-in-aid list and to pay his salary from State Exchequer - Facts disclosed and reasons given above are self revealing and thus, Court are not in doubt that appointment of petitioner (respondent No. 1 in this Special Appeal) was not in accordance with law, not only for want of approval by authority concerned, but also because at time of his alleged appointment he was not fulfilling essential minimum qualification for post. name of petitioner is said to have been sent to D.I.O.S. by management pursuant to a non-existent letter and, as such, Court also have no hesitation to hold that such uncalled for information said to have been submitted by management of college cannot be basis of inclusion of his name amongst teachers of college, who are entitled to receive salary from State exchequer on college having been brought on Grant-in-aid list.
Result : Special Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Order On C. M. Application No. 44248 of 2021
1. Heard Shri Atul Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
2. This application has been filed by the State Appellant seeking Condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the Special Appeal. Having gone through the affidavit filed in support of the Application, we find that the cause shown for the delay in filing the Special Appeal is sufficient and the delay in filing the Appeal deserves to be condoned.
3. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned.
Order On Special Appeal
1. Heard Shri Atul Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
2. The instant Intra Court Appeal has been filed by the State authorities against the judgment and order dated 25-11-2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing Writ Petition No. 31660 (S/S) of 2019, which was filed by the respondent no. 1 challenging on order dated 06-09-2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur Kheri (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “the D.I.O.S.”), rejecting the petitioner’s representation to include his name in the list of teachers of the college for taking it on State Government’s Grant-in-aid and consequently pay him salary from the State exchequer.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 had filed the Writ Petition pleading that he holds the qualifications of Bachelor of Arts alongwith Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination of Bombay and being fully eligible for being appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Art), he had applied against a post of Assistant Teacher (Art) advertised by Sri. Hanumant Intermediate College, Lakhimpur-Kheri (the respondent no. 2 in the Appeal, which shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the college'). Vide order dated 10-10-1999, the Manager of the college had appointed the petitioner on the aforesaid post on a temporary basis and the petitioner joined his duties on 11-10-1999. The petitioner has alleged that the Manager of the college became annoyed with him and did not allow him to perform his duties for the period from 22-11-2000 till 14-07-2001 and being perturbed, humiliated and victimized, coupled with mental tension and depression, the petitioner fell seriously ill and on 22-11-2000 itself, he gave an application for grant of leave to the Principal of the college. Although the petitioner has alleged that he was required to furnish a compromise that he will not claim salary for the aforesaid period, the document alleged to be a compromise is a letter dated 14-07-2001 written by the petitioner to the D.I.O.S. stating that he had not performed teaching duties in the college between the period 22-11-2000 to 14-07-2001 and, therefore, he will not claim the salary and allowances etc. for the aforesaid period. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the Manager of the college also. Thereafter the petitioner was allowed to perform his duties with effect from 21-07-2001.
4. The petitioner has stated that the process for taking the college on the Grant-in-aid list was started by the college in the year 1998 and at that time, a list of the staff working in the college was sent to the State Government. As the petitioner was not working at that time, his name was not there in the list. As per the petitioner, in August 2000 the manager of the college had sent another list of members of staff to the D.I.O.S., in which the petitioner’s name was there and also that on 16-01-2001, the D.I.O.S. sought some information from the college and the Manager was directed to send the names of the staff members who were working in the college at that time a
Point of Law : Petitioner possessed the eligibility qualification on the said date, he was given re-appointment in pursuance of some agreement, without advertising the post and without obtaining the ....
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....
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
PTA-appointed Assistant Professor from reserved category meeting relaxed 50% Master's marks and eligibility test criteria entitled to Grant-in-Aid salary from appointment date; denial despite parity ....
Absorption into aided posts requires adherence to established rules and qualifications; long service alone cannot justify irregular appointments.
Point of Law : Probation appointment - Appointment of the petitioner was not made on the said post of lecturer after following the requisite procedure under Statute 417 framed by the University.
The court emphasized the need for a detailed enquiry into the appointment of the petitioners and highlighted the importance of compliance with rules for salary release and eligibility determination.
The Court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and held that non-compliance without a valid reason is contemptuous.
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
