Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
Govind Raman Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A No.11555 of 2019, WRIT A No.15498 of 2019, WRIT A No. 20414 of 2019
Decided on : 11-01-2024
Approval - Appointment of Assistant Teacher - Rules of 1978 - Summary of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1978
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the challenge of orders rejecting the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher and the subsequent denial of salary. The appointment was made without the mandatory approval of the District Basic Education Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be considered deemed approved under Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978, as the District Basic Education Officer had communicated his decision to withhold approval within the stipulated time.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher should be deemed approved under Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deeming clause under Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 does not apply when the competent authority has communicated a decision to withhold approval within the specified time period.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court found no illegality in the impugned orders dated 22.5.2019, 17.7.2019, and 19.9.2019.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4.
2. Petitioner through Writ-A No.11555 of 2019 has challenged the order dated 22.5.2019 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur, whereby petitioner’s case for payment of salary of the post of Assistant Teacher has been rejected.
3. Petitioners through Writ-A No. 15498 of 2019 have challenged the order dated 17.7.2019 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur, whereby direction has been issued to Manager of the Committee of Management of Sri Vishwanath Junior High School, Shahjahanpur to cancel the appointment of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi on the post of Assistant Teacher.
4. Petitioner through Writ-A No. 20414 of 2019 has challenged the order dated 19.9.2019 passed by the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, whereby it has been provided that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher cannot be approved.
5. Since the aforesaid all the writ petitions are related with the approval of the appointment of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi on the post of Assistant Teacher in Sri Vishwanath Junior High School, Shahjahanpur and all the writ petitions have been connected by the order passed by this court therefore, they are being decided together.
6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that one post of Assistant Teacher in Sri Vishwanath Junior High School, Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the school’) fell vacant on 30.6.2015. The District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur vide order dated 1.4.2016 granted permission for making appointment on the aforesaid vacant post of Assistant Teacher. An advertisement for the selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the school was published on 7.6.2018 in the Newspaper ‘Spasht Awaz’, on 8.6.2018 in the Newspaper ‘Divya Prakash’ and on 10.6.2018 in the Newspaper ‘Pioneer’. The District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur vide order dated 2.6.2018 has appointed Sri Suresh Chandra, Block Education Officer as his nominee in the selection committee for the appointment in question.
7. The selection committee conducted interviews of the candidates and prepared merit list and thereby recommended name of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the school. The Committee of Management of the school considered the recommendations made by the selection committee in its meeting held on 29.6.2018 and accepted the recommendations. The Manager of the Committee of Management of the school vide his letter dated 2.7.2018 forwarded the papers relating to the selection of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi to District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur for his approval. The District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur vide his letter dated 23.7.2018 responded to the Manager of the Committee of Management of the school and informed that since the strength of the students in the school is very low therefore, the matter has been referred to the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow for his guidance and only after the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow provides guidance in the matter, the decision over the matter of approval of selection will be taken.
8. The Manager of the Committee of Management of the school vide his letter dated 30.7.2018 submitted his explanation in response to the letter of the District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur dated 23.7.2018 and requested that selection in question be approved so that appointment may be made against the vacant post. Since there was no response by the District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur after the letter dated 23.7.2018, the Manager of the school issued appointment order on 14.8.2018, whereby Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the school. Pursuant to appointment order dated 14.8.2018, Mr. Govind Raman Tri
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....
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
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....
The court upheld the necessity of verifying the genuineness of appointments in grant-in-aid institutions, emphasizing that forged documents cannot establish entitlement to salary from public funds.
The court upheld the rejection of salary claims based on findings that the petitioners' appointment letters were forged and the selection process did not comply with applicable recruitment rules.
The appointments were found to be void ab initio due to the lack of essential qualifications and the flawed selection process.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
The court affirmed deemed approval for teacher appointments due to the respondent's failure to act within legal timelines and ruled that objections for rejection were legally invalid.
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
