Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ BHATIA,J.
Shyam Ji Tiwari And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Edu. Lko. And Others – Respondents
Writ A No.1674 of 2023
Decided on : 22-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pradeep Tiwari
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to deemed approval and salary under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, based on the statutory provisions of Section 16FF and Regulation 17(g) in the context of minority institutions.
Headnote:
deemed approval - salary entitlement - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Section 16FF, Regulation 17(g)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought salary and deemed approval to their appointment under Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The respondent college, a minority institution, had vacant posts and conducted interviews for direct recruitment. Despite forwarding the appointment proposal, no approval was granted, leading to the petitioners' claim for deemed approval and salary entitlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the statutory framework of Section 16FF and Regulation 17(g) and concluded that the petitioners were entitled to deemed approval and salary since the date of appointment, as no disapproval was communicated within the prescribed period. The court ordered the computation and payment of arrears within four months, affirming the petitioners' entitlement to salary under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the deemed approval of appointments under Regulation 17(g) and the entitlement to salary under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, in the context of the respondent college's failure to grant formal approval for the appointments made by the Committee of Management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 16FF and Regulation 17(g), emphasizing the accrual of vested rights in favor of the petitioners due to the deemed approval provision. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to salary since the date of appointment, as no disapproval was communicated within the prescribed period.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the computation and payment of arrears to the petitioners within four months, affirming their entitlement to salary under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Tiwari the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
2. The present has been filed by the petitioners claiming the salary and also claimed deemed approval to their appointment by virtue of Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent no.5 runs a college in the name of Rahat Janta Inter College and enjoy the minority status. It is claimed that the institution run by the said committee has been granted recognition up to the Secondary Education. It is also claimed that the institution in question is under grant-in-aid list of the State Government. It is claimed that in the institution in question, the posts have been sanctioned which include the post of Principal, six post of lecturer, fifteen post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade, ten post of Assistant Teacher C.T. Grade, three clerks and twelve peons.
4. It is stated that certain posts fell vacant in the institution in question, the Committee of Management after determining the vacancies proposed to fill the same by means of direct recruitment and an advertisement was issued on 11.04.2017 through publication in the newspaper, all the details were specified and the interview was fixed on 05.05.2017. It is also on record that the committee of management inform the DIOS, the respondent no.4, and was invited to monitor the selection process to bring the transparency in the selection process. It is stated that the DIOS, despite the said request, did not participate in the selection process nor did he nominate any member to be a part of the selection process or to monitor the process of selection. However, on the said date fixed, selections were made by the Committee of Management and a proposal for appointment was forwarded by the Manager of the College vide letter dated 23.05.2017 seeking approval. It is stated that despite a comprehensive communication sent by the Committee of Management, no order was passed with regard to the grant of approval or its resolution as contemplated under section 16FF(3) of the Act in question.
5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that once the papers are forwarded in terms of the mandate of Section 16FF read with Regulation 17 Chapter II of the Act and no approval is granted, there is a provision for deemed approval as provided under section 17(g) of Chapter II framed under the 1921 Act. In the light of the said provision, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the appointments made by the Committee of Management would be deemed to have been approved by virtue of legal fiction provided for under Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II framed under the 1921 Act.
6. It is argued that once there is a deemed approval, the necessary consequence of payment of salary has to flow by virtue of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. It is argued that the respondent no.4 himself brought on record the entire process adopted by the Committee of Management for appointment and sought necessary guidance from the Director of Education through a letter dated 16.02.2022.
7. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the process adopted by the DIOS in seeking guidance from the Director of Education is neither contemplated under the Act nor under the Regulations and the power is conferred upon the Inspector to pass an order which has not been done by the DIOS. In support of the said proposition, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Kumar and others vs. D. M. Auraiya; Writ A No.17325 of 1999 decided on 13.03.2013. It is thus, argued that once there is a deemed approval to the appointment of the petitioners, they ought to have been paid the salary which has not been paid and thus, the rights of the petitioners enshrined under Article 1
