IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Manoj Kumar Mishra - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18717 of 2015
Decided on : 10-04-2024
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.-This writ petition is directed against an order of the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow dated January the 23rd, 2015, rejecting the petitioner's claim for grant of financial sanction to his appointment as an Assistant Teacher (Model Subjects) with the Maharshi Durwasa Sanskrit Uttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kakra, Dubawal, Allahabad (now Prayagraj).
2. The Maharshi Durwasa Sanskrit Uttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kakra, Dubawal, Prayagraj (for short, 'the Institution') is a recognized Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, recognized by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University Varanasi, Varanasi (for short, 'the University'). Earlier in the day, the Institution was not in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State. Grant-in-aid was extended to the Institution vide Government Order dated 12.8.2010. In consequence of extension of grant-in-aid, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971') are applicable to the Institution. The petitioner says that he holds a Postgraduate Degree of M.A. in Hindi, besides a B.Ed. Degree. He was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Modern) on 5.7.1993 and joined the Institution on 9.7.1993. He is functioning as an Assistant Teacher (Modern) with the Institution eversince. He was in receipt of salary paid by the Management out of their own resources. Upon extension of grant-in-aid to the Institution in terms of the Government Order dated 12.8.2010, the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj (for short, 'the DIOS') wrote a letter to the Manager/Principal of the Institution on 25.8.2010 to send up the list of teachers working with the Institution and other relevant papers. In deference to the aforesaid letter issued by the DIOS, the Managing Committee of the Institution sent a proposal with all relevant papers on 20.9.2010 to the DIOS for the payment of salary to the teachers and other employees of the Institution, including the petitioner.
3. Later on, the Principal of the Institution on account of some misplaced ill-will, as the petitioner says, in collusion with the Manager sent a salary bill to the Education Authorities, where in the petitioner's place, the name of the Principal's son, Pushpendra Mani Shukla was included in the list of teachers and the petitioner's omitted. Consequently, no salary bill relating to the petitioner was submitted to the DIOS nor payment made to him, or Pushpendra Mani Shukla.
4. The petitioner, upon coming to know of these developments, made a complaint to the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow, who directed the DIOS vide his letter dated 11.11.2010 to hold an inquiry and submit a report. The DIOS conducted an inquiry and submitted his report dated 30.12.2010 to the Director of Education. The DIOS in his report held that Manoj Kumar Mishra, the petitioner, joined service on 9.7.1993 and that he is regularly functioning in the Institution. The Director of Education vide his order dated 28.3.2012 granted approval to the petitioner's appointment with the Institution with a direction to pay him salary. At the same time, Pushpendra Mani Shukla's appointment was cancelled. The petitioner says that despite the order of the Director of Education dated 28.3.2012, the Manager did not send the petitioner's salary bill nor included the petitioner's name in the roll of teachers nor was the petitioner allowed to sign the attendance register. Consequently, the petitioner laid another complaint to the DIOS, who vide his letter dated 22.5.2012 allowed the petitioner to sign the attendance register.
5. The petitioner has urged that he was chasing his claim to realize his salary, but with little success in the face of the Manager and the Principal of the Institution joining hands. Left with no other option, the petitioner says, he instituted Writ-A No. 39479 of 2012 before this Court, seeking a direction for the payment of
Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig (Dead) by LRs and others
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
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 appointments were found to be void ab initio due to the lack of essential qualifications and the flawed selection process.
Teacher training qualification mandatory at appointment time under statutory rules; subsequent acquisition does not validate; executive resolutions cannot override rules.
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....
Absorption into aided posts requires adherence to established rules and qualifications; long service alone cannot justify irregular appointments.
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.