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
| 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
Abhay Nandan Inter College v. State of U.P.
Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Sevadas Vidyamandir High School
Jitendra Kumar v. State of Punjab
Miss Neelim Shangla v. State of Haryana
Mohindhr Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others
N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission
P Mahendran v. State of Karnataka
Ramji Dwivedi [Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U.P.
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India
State of Bihar v. Mithilesh Kumar
State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Principal, Abhay Nandan Inter College and others
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.
Regulation 101 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 applies to minority institutions, mandating prior approval from the DIOS for non-teaching staff appointments to ensure compliance with stat....
An appointment without prior approval under Section 101 of the Regulation would be a nullity in so far as it purports to bind the State Government to grant aid to the institution concerned for paymen....
A candidate has a right to be considered in light of existing Rules which implies Rules in force as on date of consideration.
Post of Clerk – Selection process - Appointment of petitioner/respondent, if allowed, will amount allowing a person to be appointed without following procedure of law as selection process of petition....
Administrative orders have prospective operation unless indicated otherwise, and cogent reasons are required to prevent completion of the selection process.
Candidates participating in a recruitment process do not have a legal right to appointment if the selection process is found to be flawed and thus invalid.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.