Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJAN ROY, J.
C/M Azimuddin Ashraf Islamia Inter College, Barabanki – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 3793 of 2018
Decided On : 07-05-2022
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Section 16 FF (5), 16 FF (4) - Selection and appointment - Petitioner has challenged the order holding the selection and appointment of the Teachers by the petitioner - Committee of Management to be illegal seeking certain clarifications from it - State Government can authorise Joint Director Education to perform all or any of the duties of a Regional Deputy Director and the Government Order.
Finding of the Court:
Held that selected candidates possess requisite qualification and has accordingly approved selection and appointment, order of District Inspector of Schools impugned herein is clearly in teeth of law as also highly objectionable in sense he has forgotten hierarchy and control which is hallmark of any administrative organization - It was not open for District Inspector of Schools to reopen the issue after adjudication by Joint Director of Secondary Education, vide order - All that he was required to do was to verify educational testimonials and training documents for purposes of payment of salary, instead he has embarked upon an unnecessary exercise pointing out certain irregularities in selection which could not have been seen by him - Order of Joint Director is referable as also Government Order, contained as Annexure No. 18 to petition - Counter affidavit is silent as to how Joint Director of Secondary Education, did not have jurisdiction in matter in view of Government Order veracity of which has not been challenged.
Results: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJAN ROY, J.
1. Heard.
2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki dated 19.12.2017 holding the selection and appointment of the Teachers by the petitioner-Committee of Management to be illegal seeking certain clarifications from it.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that selection was held for filling up three posts of Lecturers and one Assistant Teacher in the Petitioner- Institution which is a minority Institution about which there is no dispute in the counter affidavit. The proposal for approval for such selection and appointment was sent to the District Inspector of Schools concerned who vide order dated 30.05.2017 rejected it on account of certain alleged irregularities. The petitioner-Committee of Management filed an appeal/ representation before the Joint Director of Secondary Education, 9th Region, Faizabad Region, Faizabad on 06.06.2017 under Section 16 FF (5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The matter was considered by the Joint Director who vide order dated 30.06.2017 set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 30.05.2017. Copy of the order of Joint Direction is annexed as Annexure No. 11. This order was passed in compliance of the judgment and order dated 20.06.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13986 (MS) of 2017 wherein a direction had been issued to the appellate authority to decide the petitioner's appeal, expeditiously, say by 10th of July, 2017 keeping in view the provisions as contained in Section 16 FF (4) of the Act of 1921.
4. The Court has perused the order of the Joint Director dated 30.06.2017 and finds that a categorical finding has been recorded by him that the selected persons possess the requisite qualifications for the post for which they have been selected. Accordingly, in view of Section 16 FF (4) of the Act of 1921 there is no reason for not granting approval. Consequently, he has granted approval subject to the condition that if any concealment or falsehood is found in the matter, then the approval would automatically stand rescinded. He has further observed that the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki shall be under an obligation to verify the educational testimonials and training documents of the selectees from the concerned Institution/University and pay the salary only thereafter. Now, after this order, all that the District Inspector of Schools was required to do is to verify the educational testimonials and training documents of the selectees. Instead of doing so, by means of the impugned order, he has held that the Joint Director, in fact, had no jurisdiction and under Section 16 FF, it is Regional Deputy Director who had jurisdiction in the matter and thereafter he has pointed out various irregularities in the selection and has held that the selection appears to be irregular, accordingly he has sought information from the petitioner.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the Government Order dated 19.12.1997 contained as Annexure No. 18 veracity of which has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, according to which the tasks which were to be performed by the Deputy Director of Education under the Act of 1921 are to be performed by the concerned Joint Director, but it seems that the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki was wholly oblivious of this fact.
6. Section 16 FF (4) of the Act of 1921 reads as under:
7. The Court may refer to Section 2 (dd) of the Act of 1921 which defines “Regional Deputy Director Education” as under:
State Government can authorise the Joint Director Education to perform all or any of the duties of a Regional Deputy Director and the Government Order.
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 ....
A perusal of Sub-section (4) of Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921 indicates that the Inspector is prohibited from withholding approval of selection made under Section 16-FF where the persons selected ....
The judgment establishes that allegations of fraud and forgery must be supported by evidence, and impugned orders lacking such evidence are bad for want of authority of law.
Prior approval is required before issuance of any appointment letter, but not for initiating the selection process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process for educational institutions should be governed by the rules and government orders in existence on the date when the pro....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that nobody can be condemned unheard, and an authority cannot review a decision taken by a duly constituted committee without referring the matter ....
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
