IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Pramod Kumar and 9 ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and 5 ors. - Respondents
WRIT A NO. 3722 OF 2019.
Decided On : 29-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
This is second round of litigation. Petitioners have approached this Court earlier by way of filing Writ-A No. 18428 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.08.2018 and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter:
2. In pursuance of above order, case of petitioners for financial approval was considered, however, it was rejected by means of impugned order dated 19.01.2019. Relevant part of impugned order is mentioned hereinafter:
3. Sri. Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in attached primary section of Respondent-Institution on 21.04.2005 and 15.06.2005. Learned counsel further submitted that selection was made in accordance with due procedure after taking prior permission from District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and therein selection was approved on 21.04.2004. Learned counsel further submitted that junior section of institution concerned was brought into grant-in-aid in 2017 and thereafter application was forwarded for financial approval. Learned counsel submitted that in garb of consideration for approval, the respondents have conducted entire exercise to verify whether due process was followed or not, which was beyond their powers. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on a judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Shalini and others v. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:129988 and for reference relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:
The court upheld the rejection of salary claims based on findings that the petitioners' appointment letters were forged and the selection process did not comply with applicable recruitment rules.
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.
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....
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....
The court affirmed that appointments made prior to new qualification rules remain valid, emphasizing continuity of service and entitlement to salary for teachers who later acquired necessary qualific....
Appointments made under inapplicable statutory rules are void and cannot confer enforceable rights; the governing statutes change with institutional upgrades.
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.
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.