Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Om Prakash Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31827 of 2014
Decided On : 21-12-2023
Mandamus - Assistant Teacher - Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978; Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding appointment and salary entitlements of teachers, affirming the petitioner's valid appointment and right to salary under the Act and Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a qualified Assistant Teacher, was appointed in 1996 but was denied salary by the District Basic Education Officer, leading to a writ petition for mandamus to secure payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was valid, having followed the proper selection process and received necessary approvals, thus entitling him to salary under the relevant laws.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to salary despite claims of non-qualification and appointment against a non-sanctioned post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be invalidated by later determinations of sanctioned strength, and the petitioner was entitled to salary for his service.
Result: The petition is allowed; the petitioner is entitled to receive salary from the date of appointment.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
The petitioner, Om Prakash Yadav, appears to be a qualified and duly selected Assistant Teacher, appointed with the Raja Ram Sahab Lal Kisan Adarsh Junior High School, Saraibeeka, Jaunpur way back on 4.9.1996, and, yet, for some mysterious reason, the respondent-District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur says that he is not qualified, not validly selected or appointed and, therefore, not entitled to salary.
2. The petitioner has moved this Court praying that a mandamus be issued to the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and the Management to adjust/confirm the petitioner on the vacant post of an Assistant Teacher created with the Institution aforesaid on the retirement of one Ram Tawankal Patel and pay him salary. In substance, the petitioner prays that this Court do issue a writ of mandamus, commanding these respondents to pay him salary pursuant to his appointment as an Assistant Teacher, made strictly in accordance with law and duly approved by the Education Authority.
3. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bhaiya Lal Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raj Bihari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
4. Raja Ram Sahab Lal Kisan Adarsh Junior High School, Jaunpur is a recognised and aided non-Government Institution. It imparts education to both boys and girls from Classes VI to VIII. There are some 400 students reading in this school, which shall hereinafter be called 'the Institution'. The teachers and other employees working in the Institution are paid salary in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act of 1978').
5. The petitioner says that he is the holder of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Education degrees. He, therefore, possesses the minimum educational qualifications required for appointment to the post of an Assistant Teacher in a recognized and aided Junior High School. The petitioner, when selected and appointed, also fulfilled the criterion of age. The procedure for selection and appointment of an Assistant Teacher to a Junior High School, recognised and aided by the State, is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (for short, 'the Service Rules').
6. According to the petitioner's case, he was selected on 27.8.1996 by a duly constituted Selection Committee who ranked him at serial No. 1 of the select list. The petitioner's selection was approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur vide order dated 29.8.1996 after scrutiny of papers forwarded by the Manager of the Institution. After the Authority's approval, granted under Rule 10(5)(i)(a) of the Service Rules, the petitioner was appointed by the Manager vide a letter of appointment dated 4.9.1996 to the post of an Assistant Teacher on probation for a period of one year. A copy of the letter of appointment was forwarded by the Manager of the Institution to the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur on 6.9.1996. The petitioner appeared before the Manager of the Institution on 9.9.1996 to submit his joining report and was permitted to join. On 10.9.1996, the Manager of the Institution directed the Headmaster to permit the petitioner to join his duties. It is the petitioner's case that ever since he joined the Institution, he is regularly teaching all subjects assigned to him from Classes VI to VIII.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid salary, though he has represented his case and on several occasions, sought audience from the respondents for the purpose.
8. Failing in his endeavours, the petitioner instituted Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7728 of 1998, impleading both the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpu
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
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....
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 appointments were found to be void ab initio due to the lack of essential qualifications and the flawed selection process.
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....
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....
Long-standing appointments cannot be invalidated without evidence of wrongdoing, emphasizing stability in employment.
The court reaffirmed that judicial decisions regarding employment rights must be respected, and that grounds for termination or denial of appointment must be substantiated with valid evidence, partic....
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
