Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
C/M Shivaji Inter College and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 3395 of 2022
Decided On : 02-09-2022
Selection Process - Educational Institution - Regulation 101 Chapter III, Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - The Court discussed the applicability of the Regulation 101 Chapter III of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Government Order dated 25.11.2021 in the selection process for filling up a vacancy in an educational institution. The Court held that the selection process should be governed by the rules and government orders in existence on the date when the process was initiated. It also emphasized that the approval from the District Inspector of Schools is required after the selection process is over but before making the appointment to the post. The impugned order was found to be ante-dated and lacking reasoning, and was accordingly quashed with a direction to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation 101 Chapter III, Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, the Committee of Management of an educational institution, sought mandamus to consider and approve the selection of an Assistant Clerk. The District Inspector of Schools disapproved the appointment, leading to the petitioners amending the writ petition to challenge the order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the selection process should be governed by the rules and government orders in existence on the date when the process was initiated. It also emphasized the requirement of approval from the District Inspector of Schools after the selection process is over but before making the appointment to the post. The impugned order was found to be ante-dated and lacking reasoning, and was accordingly quashed with a direction to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation 101 Chapter III, Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Issues: The issues involved included the applicability of Regulation 101 Chapter III of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Government Order dated 25.11.2021 in the selection process, the requirement of approval from the District Inspector of Schools, and the validity of the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Regulation 101 Chapter III of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the requirement of approval from the District Inspector of Schools, and the principles established in previous court decisions regarding the selection process and approval for educational institutions.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation 101 Chapter III, Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the observations made by the Court, expeditiously preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of service of this order.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The writ petitioners who are the Committee of Management of Shivaji Inter College, Sahson Prayagraj (Allahabad) and its Manger, initially approached this Court seeking the issuance of mandamus commanding the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj/respondent No.3 to consider and accord approval to the selection of one Sri Sudhir Kumar Dwivedi S/o Late Rajmadhi Dwivedi as Assistant Clerk in the Institution in question and ensure the payment of admissible salary alongwith other service benefits to him. During the pendency of the writ petition an order dated 23.3.2022 came to be passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj whereby disapproving the appointment and selection of Sri Sudhir Kumar Dwivedi as Assistant Clerk in the Institution. The said order has now been impugned in the writ petition by amending the writ petition.
3. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the instant writ petition briefly stated are that there is an educational Institution in the name and style of Shivaji Inter College, Sahson, Prayagraj duly recognised and aided. The petitioner No.1 is its Committee of Management while the petitioner No.2 is its Manager. The Institution has an approved teaching / non teaching strength of 01 Principal, 12 lecturers, 25 Assistant Teachers, 01 Head Clerk, 03 Assistant Clerks and 13 peons. The Institution is recognised and duly permitted to run Science and Art streams upto Intermediate level and has a total student strength of 1652 which includes boys and girls. The details of the number of students in each class for the current session have been stated in para-7 of the writ petition. Two posts of Assistant Clerks in the Institution fell vacant on 31.1.2013 and 30.11.2014 on the retirement of Sri Shiyaram Singh and Sri Raj Bahadur Singh. The vacancies were intimated to the respondents vide letters dated 2.3.2019, 2.4.2019 and 15.9.2019 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The petitioner Committee of Management also resolved to fill up the post of Assistant Clerk and sought permission to fill up at least 01 post vide letters dated 1.10.2021 and 20.10.2021 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). No response having been received from the Competent Authorities and considering the emergent situation, the petitioners proceeded to advertise 01 post of the Assistant Clerk in the interest of the Institution and the students in widely circulated Newspaper namely "Hindustan" and "Aaj" on 16.11.2021. The District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj, respondent No.3 was also intimated about the advertisement vide letter dated 26.11.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Thereafter, a duly constituted Committee undertook the selection process and 08 eligible candidates appeared and underwent the selection process which comprised of typing test and computer knowledge test. On the basis of the quality point marks obtained by the candidates one Sri Sudhir Kumar Dwivedi was placed at Serial No.1 with total quality point marks of 139.3, Sri Indra Prakash Tiwari was placed at Serial No.2 with 137.45 quality point marks and Sri Naresh Kumar Nishad was placed at Serial No.3 with 135.10 quality point marks. The petitioner Committee of Management accepted the select panel of the Selection Committee and the requisite papers were forwarded to the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 11.12.2021. When nothing was heard for considerable time from the office of the respondent No.3, the petitioners sent reminders on 30.12.2021, 10.1.2022 and 18.1.2022. Since no response was received from the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj / respondent No.3 and the requisite papers submitted with the respondent No.3 on 11.12.2021 was still pending decision, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition. During the pendency of th
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 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 ....
Prior approval is required before issuance of any appointment letter, but not for initiating the selection process.
Post of Clerk – Selection process - Appointment of petitioner/respondent, if allowed, will amount allowing a person to be appointed without following procedure of law as selection process of petition....
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....
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 ....
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.
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
