Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Srivastava, J.
Bharat Bhushan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 48361, 51619 and 53289 of 2010
Decided On : 18-05-2023
Employment - Assistant Teacher - Act Section List - The court discussed provisions related to the appointment and approval process for educational positions, emphasizing the necessity of formal approval from competent authorities and the implications of lacking documentation on salary entitlements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher but faced issues in receiving salary due to alleged lack of formal approval for additional posts and appointment procedures, leading to a writ petition challenging the denial of salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of salary was based on the absence of records and formal approval, which was deemed insufficient to invalidate the petitioner's claim, especially given the approval had been previously granted.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary despite the absence of formal approval documents for the appointment and additional posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of documentation does not automatically invalidate the appointment if prior approvals were granted, and emphasized the need for the authorities to act on existing records.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the order denying salary is quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Srivastava, J.
Since the controversy involved in the aforementioned writ petitions is similar, they are being heard and disposed of together by a common order, which is being passed in Writ-A No. 48361 of 2010, treating it as a leading case.
2. Heard Shri Yogish Kumar Saxena alongwith Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsels for the petitioners and Shri Saurabh Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
3. As per the directions of this Court, a detailed counter-affidavit has also preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 6, which is by and large supporting the stand whatsoever has been taken up by the petitioner.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been appointed on 1.4.1999 after adopting due process of recruitment as applicable in the case of Assistant Teacher. After initiating the appointment procedure for the post of Assistant Teacher, the respondent No. 6 submitted the entire documents pertaining to the petitioners who have been finally selected for the said posts for seeking approval of the same.
5. As per the documents appended alongwith the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrated that the approval has already been granted by the competent authority i.e. respondent No. 5 in favour of the petitioner.
6. The relevant facts with regard to the initiation of the appointment procedure as mentioned in the petition is that the formal approval has been sought by the institution, considering the strength of the students five additional posts have been sanctioned by the competent authority vide letter dated 16.8.1998 and as such the sanctioned strength in the institution concerned have been raised from four to nine and the appointment of the petitioner was finalised over the petitioner's sanctioned strength of Assistant Teachers, which was duly approved by the competent authority.
7. After being appointed and rendering the services for the post of Assistant Teacher, the documents regarding payment of salary to the petitioner have been apprised by the competent authority but inaction carried out by the respondent-authorities gave rise to the cause of action in favour of the petitioner to prefer writ petition for seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to extend the benefit of month-wise salary in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was C.M.W.P. No. 56520 of 2009 (Bharat Bhushan Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others), which was decided on 10.11.2009.
8. In the strict compliance of the order and direction dated 10.11.2009, the respondent No. 2 decided the claim of the petitioner by way of rejecting the same on the basis that there is hardly any order available issued by the competent authority of the department for sanctioning five additional posts of Assistant Teacher and as such whatever the appointment process initiated and conducted by the respondent No. 6 was not valid and the petitioner is not entitled to receive salary at the behest of aided institution which has to be extended by the State Exchequer. While deciding the claim of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 saddled the responsibility upon the Committee of Management to initiate the process of selection without seeking formal approval which was mandatory to be obtained from the competent authority vide order dated 3.2.2010, which is put under challenge in the instant petition.
9. It is also the case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons who have been mentioned in the M.R. Register at the time of submitting the documents way back in the year 2006 when the institution has been taken into grant-in-aid the salary has been extended to them but the petitioner has been left.
10. While considering the prayer as made in the writ petition, all the respondents were directed to file counter-affidavits, in response the pleadings were exchanged and specific counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 6 have been preferr
Formal approval from competent authorities is essential for salary entitlements, but lack of documentation does not negate previously granted approvals.
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....
Approval of appointments is deemed granted despite subsequent complaints if prior orders were not challenged or invalidated.
Point of law: If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded a....
Salary claims in public service are contingent upon the legality of the appointment; illegal appointments do not confer entitlement to salary.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Teachers/lectures who are employed at present the TGTs and lecturers would continue to be so employed till the aforesaid process is completed and to the extent the financial benefits are given by the....
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.
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
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
