Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, JJ.
Rambha Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 229 of 2019
Decided on : 27-05-2024
INTRA COURT APPEAL - EDUCATION LAW - Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972; Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School)(Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teacher) Rules, 1978; Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, which governs the appointment of teachers in recognized institutions, and the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School)(Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teacher) Rules, 1978, particularly Rule 7(2) regarding recruitment procedures. The court emphasized the importance of fair recruitment processes and adherence to principles of natural justice, concluding that the appointment was tainted by favoritism and procedural irregularities, thus influencing the decision to uphold the cancellation of the appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The post of Headmaster at Gautam Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya fell vacant due to retirement. The process for appointing a new Headmaster was initiated by the Deputy Manager before his signatures were formally attested. The petitioner was appointed as Headmistress, but her appointment was challenged by other candidates who claimed they were unfairly excluded from the selection process. The District Basic Education Officer later canceled the appointment, citing procedural irregularities and favoritism.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recruitment process was initiated without proper authorization from the managing committee and lacked transparency. The appointment was deemed invalid due to the failure to follow legal procedures and the presence of favoritism, particularly given the relationship between the petitioner and the District Basic Education Officer.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress was valid given the procedural irregularities and allegations of favoritism in the recruitment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recruitment process must adhere to established legal frameworks and principles of natural justice. The lack of proper authorization and the failure to provide equal opportunity to all eligible candidates rendered the appointment invalid.
Final Decision: The intra court appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge that the appointment of the petitioner was invalid due to procedural irregularities and favoritism.
JUDGMENT :
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. This intra court appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7.12.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 12781 of 2018; whereby the challenge laid to the order of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, dated 19th May, 2018, is rejected.
2. Admitted facts, as are noticed by the learned Single Judge, are that the post of Headmaster in Gautam Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Basti Mundera, District Ballia (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution’) fell vacant on 30th June, 2014 due to retirement of the earlier Headmaster. The Institution is recognized under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 and is receiving financial aid from the State. The Manager of the Institution, namely Sanjay Singh resigned on 24th April, 2015 and the Deputy Manager, Hridya Nand Singh assumed charge of the office of Manager of the Committee of Management pursuant to resolution of Committee of Management, dated 31st May, 2015. Papers for attestation of signatures of Hridya Nand Singh as Manager were sent to District Basic Education Officer, who approved his signatures on 6.6.2015. Even before attestation of his signatures/recognition as the Manager of the Institution, Hridya Nand Singh initiated the process for appointment to the post of Headmaster by seeking permission to advertise the post vide his letter dated 1st June, 2015. On the very day when signatures of Hridya Nand Singh were attested i.e. 6th June, 2015 the District Basic Education Officer also granted him permission to fill up the post of Headmaster. On the very next day i.e. 7th June, 2015, the vacancy was advertised in two Daily Newspapers namely ‘Swatantra Chetna’ and ‘Anchalik Swar’. The selection proceedings were undertaken by the Committee of Management and ultimately the writ petitioner came to be selected and appointed as Headmistress on 26th June, 2015. Papers were sent for grant of approval to District Basic Education Officer, who approved the selection on 29th June, 2015. The petitioner claims to have assumed the charge on the office of Headmistress on 10th July, 2015.
3. Selection and appointment of petitioner was challenged by one Madhubala Singh, by filing Writ Petition No. 41678 of 2015, who claimed that she was not allowed to participate in the selection though she was eligible and had duly applied pursuant to the advertisement in question. Another candidate, namely Ashutosh Prasad Singh also challenged the selection and appointment of petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 61437 of 2015 on grounds similar to Madhubala Singh. The appointment of petitioner was directed to abide by the outcome of the writ petitions. It transpires that the District Basic Education Officer called for an explanation from the managing committee on various aspects relating to appointment offered to petitioner vide notice dated 29th April, 2017. The committee of management responded to the show cause notice vide its reply dated 2nd May, 2017. It is thereafter that the District Basic Education Officer has passed the order dated 3rd May, 2017.
The order records that:
(ii) Proper notice has not been given to the candidates before making appointment so as to extend undue favour to limited persons;
(iii) Educational qualification and age for appointment have not been specified in the advertisement;
(iv) Although, seven persons are said to have applied, but it is not clarified as to how their applications were received;
(v) The order also records that though notice has been sent to the Institution on 29.4.2017 calling for reply by 2nd May, 2017, but till 5.00 pm on 3.5.2017, no explanation was received in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia from the petitioner.
4. The order of District Basic Education Officer, dated 3rd May, 2017, came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 25292 of 2017
The recruitment process for educational appointments must be conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with statutory provisions to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and e....
The appointments were found to be void ab initio due to the lack of essential qualifications and the flawed selection process.
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....
Failure to communicate a decision within the prescribed period leads to deemed approval of appointment, despite procedural lapses.
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.
The management of private schools must adhere to the mandatory provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules, including obtaining prior permission from the Education Officer before recruitment, to ensure ....
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 ....
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
