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) 2037

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Uma Kant, Anurag Tripathi, Rahul Kumar Mishra and Shashi Kumar Dwivedi
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 - Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 - Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 - Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Heads of Institution, Teachers and Other Employees of the Institutions) Regulations, 2009 - Writ petition against rejection of financial sanction for appointment as Assistant Teacher - The petitioner was appointed on 5.7.1993 and has been teaching regularly since then - The Director of Education rejected the claim on grounds of insufficient qualifications as per the ordinance dated 28.6.1993, which was issued after the selection process commenced - The court found that the qualifications applicable at the time of selection must govern the validity of the appointment. (Paras 1-35)

(B) Educational Qualifications - The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments - The principle that a selection process cannot be adversely affected by changes in qualifications after it has commenced is well-established. (Paras 22-30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Sanskrit Institution in 1993 and has been teaching since then. Despite the Director's approval in 2012, his salary was not paid due to a dispute over qualifications.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner was qualified based on the rules in effect at the time of his appointment and that the Director's rejection of his claim was flawed.

Issues: The main issues were whether the qualifications prescribed by the ordinance applied to the petitioner and if the Director's order was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the qualifications in effect at the time of selection govern the validity of the appointment, and subsequent changes cannot affect it.

Result: The impugned order dated 23.1.2015 is quashed, and the Director is directed to ensure payment of the petitioner's salary.

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

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