Back
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI
Ashika Prasad Shukla – Appellant
Versus
District Inspector Of Schools – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.5050 of 2001, whereby the claim of appellant-petitioner of appointment as Assistant Teacher is turned down primarily on the ground that the procedure prescribed in Clause 2(3)(ii)&(iii) of Uttar Pradesh Secondary education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Second Order of 1981’) was not followed and consequently the appointment of appellant-petitioner was nullity.
2. There exists an educational institution known as Krishak Inter College, Kashauta, Allahabad (Prayagraj) [hereinafter referred to as ‘Institution’], which is duly recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1921’) and provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable upon it. The provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1982’) regulated the appointment of Teachers in the Institution.
3. Vide letter/order dated 13.11.19
Compliance with the prescribed procedure in Clause 2(3)(ii)&(iii) of the Second Order of 1981 is essential for the validity of teacher appointments.
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 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher was made against a substantive vacancy, entitling the petitioner to regularization u....
The court established that educational authorities must respond timely to requests for teacher appointments, and that failure to do so cannot be used as a basis to deny approval for appointments made....
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....
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
