SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Udai Singh and others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59654 of 2015
Decided on : 19-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Yogesh Kumar Saxena
For the Respondent: Ms. Monika Arya, A.C.S.C.

The court upheld that the appointments made before changes in recruitment policy must be considered valid under the laws in effect at that time, emphasizing the integrity of the selection process.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Education Act, 1921 - U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 - Financial approval for appointment of Class IV employees - Petitioners selected and joined but denied salary approval by Regional Level Committee - Court found appointments against sanctioned posts, with no irregularities per inquiry reports and previous orders. (Paras 1-12, 29-44)

(B) Employment Law - Right to Employment - Recruitment commenced prior to policy changes upheld; selection valid based on prior rules despite later amendments limiting direct appointments. (Paras 31-44)

(C) Jurisdictional Limits - District Magistrate's interference in employment matters of private institutions disapproved. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, appointed as Class IV employees back in 2009, faced denial of financial approval despite joining and performing duties, leading to their appeal against the Regional Level Committee’s order.

Findings of Court:
The Court quashed the impugned order and mandated a fresh decision regarding financial sanction based on lawful procedures followed during selection.

Issues: Whether the appointments were valid against sanctioned posts and the impact of policy changes on existing recruitment processes.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that appointments made before the initiation of policy changes must be upheld according to the rules that were in effect at that time, and jurisdiction for interference by external authorities was not justified.

Result: Writ petition allowed, with directions for fresh consideration of financial approval.

Table of Content
1. introduction of petition against financial sanction refusal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background and appointment process of class iv employees. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. role of educational authorities in managing staffing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. judicial interventions and prior writ petitions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. arguments regarding sanctioned strength and appointment legitimacy. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. legal positioning regarding the grounds of appeal and previous orders affecting the case. (Para 15)
7. the decision related to how changes in recruitment policies affect ongoing selection processes. (Para 16)
8. assessment of state regulations affecting recruitment. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
9. court's reasoning for intervention in administrative decisions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
10. the importance of prior selection process laws. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
11. legal standing of outsourcing decisions in recruitment. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
12. final decisions on the validity of regulations and their enforcement. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
13. consequences of policy decisions on existing recruitment processes. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
14. final order issued by the court. (Para 44 , 46)

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.-This writ petition is directed against an order dated 15.9.2015 passed by the Regional Level Committee, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, rejecting the petitioners' claim for grant of financial approval to the petitioners' selection and appointment as Class IV employees with the Janta Inter College, Ajitmal, Auraiya.

2. The petitioners, who are a thirteen strong, have moved this Court, saying that though selected to Class IV posts in accordance with rules at the Janta Inter College, Ajitmal, Auraiya ('the Institution' for short) way back on 27.2.2009, the Regional Level Committee, Kanpur Region, Kanpur have denied sanction to their selection and appointment, leading them to go without their salaries. They say that they have joined the Institution and are discharging their duties regularly.

3. The petitioners' case has somewhat of a chequered history. The Institution is a recognized intermediate college under the Uttar Pradesh Education Act, 1921 ('the Act of 1921' for short). The provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 as well as U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, including the rules and regulations framed under all these statutes are applicable to the Institution. According to the petitioners, prior to the year 1970, there were 18 posts of Class IV employees sanctioned for the Institution. With an increase in the strength of scholars, a minimum of 20 Class IV posts were required. This requirement went with the number of sanctioned sections for each class that the Institution had. By an order of 2nd November, 1970, 30 extra Class IV posts were sanctioned. On the 14th August, 1981, the then District Inspector of Schools ('DIOS' for short) issued a notice to the Institution, calling upon them to justify the strength of teachers and employees, going by the strength of scholars enrolled. The notice dated 14.8.2021 was replied to, whereafter, it is said that it was withdrawn by an order dated 21.9.1981. It is the petitioners' case that the strength of Class IV employees in the Institution, duly sanctioned, is a figure of 31. The petitioners say that according to the Government Order dated 10.2.2005, a copy whereof has been annexed, it is provided that the posts that were sanctioned prior to 9.12.1986 shall not be abolished by any officer, except under orders issued by the Director of Education, Madhyamik, U.P., Lucknow. The said order dated 10.2.2005, this Court may notice, is not a Government order ('GO' for short), but an order issued by the Director of Education aforesaid. In the year 2008, the Principal of the Institution applied for permission to fill up 13 posts of Class IV employees that were lying vacant. The DIOS granted permission vide order dated 5.5.2008, but in an action soon to follow, stayed his order granting permission on 28.5.2008. He

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top