Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
Sanjay Kumar Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 23843 of 2018
Decided On : 31-05-2024
MANDAMUS - SALARY PAYMENT TO ASSISTANT TEACHERS - Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Rules regarding the recruitment and conditions of service for teachers, particularly focusing on compliance with Rules 4, 5, and 7. The court interpreted these rules to emphasize that while procedural irregularities may exist, they do not render the appointments illegal if the selection process was conducted with the necessary approvals and oversight. The court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to their salaries and benefits as their appointments were valid and had not been rescinded.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Teachers at Keshav Nath Senior Basic School, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the District Basic Education Officer to grant them their salaries and allow them to work. Their appointments were approved by the District Basic Education Officer after a selection process, but salary payments were halted following a previous court order due to allegations of irregularities in their appointment process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' appointments were valid as they followed the necessary procedures and received the required approvals. The court noted that no disciplinary actions had been taken against the petitioners, and the approval for their appointments had not been revoked. The court emphasized that the petitioners were entitled to their salaries and benefits.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to their salaries and whether their appointments were valid despite alleged procedural irregularities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of compliance with certain procedural rules does not automatically invalidate appointments if the selection process was conducted properly and with the necessary oversight. The court also highlighted that without any disciplinary action taken against the petitioners, their right to salary could not be denied.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the State Authorities to pay the petitioners their arrears of salary and to allow them to resume their duties within four weeks.
JUDGMENT :
PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for he petitioners and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Chief standing counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1-District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur to grant salary to the petitioners on the posts of Assistant Teachers in the institution namely, Keshav Nath Senior Basic School, Horaiya, Ram Nagar Vidhmauwa, Jaunpur along with arrears, within stipulated time as may be fixed by Hon'ble Court as well as permit them to work.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that on 25.5.2003 Authorised Controller was appointed in the Institution in question. Thereafter permission was sought for appointment of four Assistant Teachers by the Athorised Controller vide letter dated 28.7.2003. The approval was accorded by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur on 29.7.2003. Thereafter advertisement with regard to appointment of Assistant Teachers was published in the newspaper in which interview was fixed for 14.8.2003.
4. The petitioners being duly qualified and eligible applied for the posts. The Selection Committee including the nominee of the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur conducted the interview. After conclusion of the interview, the petitioners were found most suitable candidates amongst all the candidates and their names were recommended by the Selection Committee.
5. On 15.8.2003 the Authorised Controller of the Institution forwarded all the requisite papers pertaining to selection of the petitioners on the posts of Assistant Teacher to the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur for approval. On 21.8.2003 the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur after verifying the requisite documents and after duly satisfied accorded approval for selection of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teachers. Thereafter the petitioners joined on the post of Assistant Teachers in the Institution in question and were discharging their duties diligently. Salary was paid to the petitioners by the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur.
6. He further submits that one Bachai Singh has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4888 of 2007 before this Court and by order dated 31.1.2007 payment of salary to the petitioners was stayed. By order dated 11.4.2018 the said writ petition was dismissed and the interim order stood vacated.
7. He further submits that some enquiry was made behind the back of the petitioners but neither any disciplinary proceedings were initiated nor suspension order was passed nor services of the petitioners were terminated till date nor approval granted by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur on 21.8.2003 was recalled.
8. He further submits that in pursucance of the ex parte report of the year 2008, first information reports had been lodged against the petitioners and charge sheet had been submitted to which application under section 482 Cr. P.C. had been filed in which interim order had been passed.
9. He further submits that for approval of appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers papers were forwarded by the Authorised Controller and on his application approval was granted by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, who happens to be State Authorities. He further submits that apart from bare allegation absolutely no material is on record to show how the petitioners had colluded for any manipulation, therefore, the petitioners should not be penalised for none of their fault.
10. In support of his submissions counsel for the petitones relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in:
(i) Radhey Shyam Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2024 AIR SC 260
(ii) Nahar Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal No. 3904 of 2013, decided on 14.7.2017
(iii) Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Basti
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
Denial of salary without any justifiable reason cannot be countenanced.
The court emphasized the need for a detailed enquiry into the appointment of the petitioners and highlighted the importance of compliance with rules for salary release and eligibility determination.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
A court may exercise its power of review upon the discovery of new, material evidence that was unavailable despite due diligence, if such evidence establishes that an appointment met constitutional s....
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
