Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Ram Narain Ram And Others – Appellant
versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Secondary Edu. And Others – Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 26967 of 2008
Decided on : 04-03-2025
(A) Education Act - Writ petitions concerning appointment and termination of teachers - Petitioners claimed legal appointment based on sanctioned posts, while respondents argued appointments were illegal - Interim orders allowed first set of petitioners to continue working - Court found no substantial evidence for termination of first set, allowing their petitions - Second set of petitioners' claims dismissed due to lack of evidence against termination. (Paras 20, 21)
(B) Principle of Equity - Long-standing service should not be disturbed without substantial justification, especially when interim orders have been in place for years. (Paras 17, 20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as teachers based on sanctioned posts, but their appointments were later challenged, leading to a series of writ petitions. The first set of petitioners continued working under interim orders, while the second set faced termination due to long absence. (Paras 2-12)
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the first set of petitioners' writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and emphasized the need for factual verification of their service. The second set's petitions were dismissed due to lack of evidence against their termination. (Paras 20, 22)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of appointments, the validity of termination orders, and the implications of interim orders on the petitioners' employment status. (Paras 5, 12, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the first set of petitioners had a legitimate expectation of continued employment based on long service and interim orders, while the second set failed to provide evidence against their termination. (Paras 17, 21)
Result: Writ petitions of the first set allowed; writ petitions of the second set dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. This is a bunch of six writ petitions. Facts of each case would be necessary to refer hereinafter for proper adjudication of all petitions.
(A) WRIT - A No. - 26967 of 2008
2. This writ petition was filed by 13 petitioners that they were appointed as Teachers/ Employees of Respondent-Institution, namely, Anjuman Islamia Higher Secondary School, Dauna Safipur, Azamgarh, which was later on upgraded from Junior High School to Higher Secondary School.
3. Petitioners have claimed that Deputy Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur has passed an order dated 01.04.1995 and sanction in all 25 posts and petitioners were thereafter appointed in pursuance of a selection process vide appointment letters issued on different dates between 2001 to 2005.
4. In 2004 Committee of Management of Respondent-Institution has filed a writ petition for taking the Institution under grant-in-aid, which was allowed vide order dated 30.09.2004 and a Special Appeal thereof filed by the State was rejected vide order dated 12.07.2005 and accordingly Respondent-Institution was brought under grant-in-aid.
5. Thereafter, in order to give financial approval, papers of petitioners were submitted. District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh vide order dated 29.12.2007 found that there were only 14 sanctioned posts on which some of the present petitioners were considered to be legally appointed. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools on basis of material available passed a detailed order whereby petitioners, Ram Narain Ram and others, were found to be in service, whereas petitioners in connected writ petitions, i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others were not found to be in service. It is further case of petitioners that within a very short period, aforesaid order was reviewed and a fresh order dated 08.05.2008 was issued wherein appointment of none of the petitioners were considered to be legal and appointment of other 13 persons (Palakdhari Ram and others) were considered to be valid and accordingly their approval was granted. This order is under challenged in present writ petition.
6. This Court vide order dated 04.06.2008 passed an interim order whereby impugned order dated 08.05.2008 was directed to be remain stayed. It appears that petitioners have worked continuously under the strength of same interim order as it remains in currency. For reference interim order dated 04.06.2008 is reproduced hereinafter:
“Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 may file counter affidavit within a month. Learned counsel for the petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
Let notice be issued to respondent nos. 5 and 6. Steps may be taken within a week. Upon steps being taken office shall fix a date in the week commencing 18.8.2008 and the writ petition may be listed on the date mentioned in the notice.
Till the next date of listing the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 8.5.2008 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)passed by respondent no. 4 shall remain stayed.”
(B) WRIT - A No. - 34523 of 2008
7. During pendency of aforesaid writ petition, three other employees have filed this writ petition challenging impugned order dated 08.05.2008 since their appointments were also considered to be illegal. This Court has granted similar interim relief to said petitioners also by way of interim order dated 18.07.2008. These petitioners also appears to continue under said interim order, which is reproduced hereinafter:
“Learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two week thereafter.
Issue notice to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to file counter affidavit within the aforesaid period.
List immediately thereafter alongwith Writ Petition No. 26967 of 2008, Ram Narain Ram and others vs. State of U.P. and others.
Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned or
Long-standing service should be protected unless substantial evidence justifies termination, especially when interim orders are in place.
Termination orders must be communicated to be effective; failure to do so renders them invalid, affirming the statutory rights of employees to their positions and benefits.
Termination of a probationary employee is lawful if principles of natural justice are followed and performance is deemed unsatisfactory.
An Education Officer cannot unilaterally revoke prior approvals for educational appointments without demonstrating fraud or misrepresentation, highlighting the necessity of legal process and justific....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
