Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 106 (ALL)

Ram Bali Rai v. District Inspector of Schools

1986-01-30

S.K.DHAON

body1986
JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This writ petition, at the instance of a teacher, is directed against an order dated 02.02.1985 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Ghazipur determining, the seniority inter-se between the petitioner and Sarva Sri Ram Bachan Chaubey and Ramji Pandey, respectively Respondents No. 3 and 4. The Petitioner has been declared to be junior to the said Respondents. 2. It is not in dispute that the Respondents No. 3 and 4 were appointed some time in 1970 as temporary teachers. These appointments came to an end on 30th June of each year and thereafter the said Respondents were reappointed for another term. This process continued right up to 1973. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No. 3 was appointed on permanent basis with effect from 01.07.1973 and the Respondent No. 4 was similarly appointed on 01.07.1973. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner was appointed on permanent basis from 08.07.1971. It is significant to note that Respondents No. 3 and 4 were appointed as permanent teachers after following the prescribed procedure. Their names were recommended by a duly constituted Selection Committee. 3. The District Inspector of Schools has based his decision solely on the provision as contained in the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulty) Vth Order, 1976. In order to determine as to whether this provision has been correctly applied, we may, in brief, refer to the relevant provision of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. Clause 3 of Chapter II provides that the Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in accordance with certain provisions as contained in (a) and (b) are relevant and extracted below: (a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post; (b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be mentioned on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. 5. The Petitioner and the Respondents No. 3 and 4 fall in the same grade. The posts on which they were appointed were substantive and these posts continue to be substantive even today. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. 5. The Petitioner and the Respondents No. 3 and 4 fall in the same grade. The posts on which they were appointed were substantive and these posts continue to be substantive even today. The only question, therefore, which requires determination, is as to when were the Petitioner and the Respondents No. 3 and 4 substantively appointed. As already indicated, on the face of it, the Petitioner was appointed earlier in point of time on substantive basis than the Respondents No. 3 and 4. However, there still remains the question as to whether the Respondents No. 3 and 4 are entitled to the benefit of their past services which, as already indicated above, commenced some time in the year 1970. 6. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Amendment) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 26 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act of 1975) made comprehensive amendments of the various provisions of the Act pertaining to the recruitment of a teacher or of a head of institution. In order to bring about the working of the various provisions of the said Act a number of Removal of Difficulties Orders were issued. 7. The preamble to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Fifth Order) 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Fifth Older) recites that whereas, a majority of teachers were employed prior to coming into force of the U.P. Act of 1975, in the interest of justice they were re appointed and allowed to continue in service temporarily or on ad hoc basis u/s 22 of that Act it is necessary to make a provision for safe guarding their interests. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the First Order) was introduced by a notification dated 18.08.1975. A combined reading of the provisions as contained in Section 22 of the U.P. Act of 1975 and the contents of the preamble of the Fifth Order immediately indicates that the Fifth Order has application only to those cases where teachers were reappointed or allowed to continue in service either temporarily or on ad hoc basis under the First Order. A combined reading of the provisions as contained in Section 22 of the U.P. Act of 1975 and the contents of the preamble of the Fifth Order immediately indicates that the Fifth Order has application only to those cases where teachers were reappointed or allowed to continue in service either temporarily or on ad hoc basis under the First Order. To put it differently, benefit of the provisions of Section 22 of the U.P. Act of 1975 and the various Removal of Difficulties Orders issued there under would be available only to those teachers who had not been appointed on permanent basis on the date of the commencement of the U.P. Act of 1975. Obviously, the Respondents No. 3 and 4 did not fall in that category as they had been re-appointed on permanent basis with effect from 01.07.1973. Clause 3 of the Fifth Order is extracted below: 3. Where any person was appointed by the Committee of Management as a teacher on or before June 30, 1975 for any period as a temporary measure with the approval or permission of the Inspector and such person has worked thereafter up to November 15, 1976, he shall be deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity. 8. We may also read Clause 6 of the Fifth Order which provides : 6. Nothing in Clause 3 shall entitle any teacher to substantive appointment on any post if on the date of publication of this Order such post has already been filled in or selection for such post has already been made in accordance with the Act and the Regulations made there under. 9. No doubt, Clause 3 of the Fifth Order, if considered in isolation of Section 22 of the U.P. Act of 1975, the preamble of the Fifth Order and Clause 6 of the said Order may be pressed into service by the Respondents No. 3 and 4. 10. However, such a course would be in violation of the well-known principle of the construction of statutes. No provision should be read in complete isolation of the other provisions. On the contrary, all the relevant provisions should be read together and even the case of an apparent conflict an effort should be made to harmonies the various provisions with each other. No provision should be read in complete isolation of the other provisions. On the contrary, all the relevant provisions should be read together and even the case of an apparent conflict an effort should be made to harmonies the various provisions with each other. Ambiguity, if any, in Clause 3 is made absolutely clear by a combined reading of the preamble of the Fifth Order and the contents of Clause 6 of the said Order. That apart, having considered Clause 3 carefully, I am of the opinion that the contents of the same, even if read in isolation, do not advance the case of the contesting Respondents. The idea in Clause 3 appears to be that a teacher appointed on or before 30.06.1975 as a temporary measure with the approval or permission of the Inspector should continue to work on temporary basis up to 15.11.1976. If these conditions are satisfied, then on account of the fiction created by the use of the word "deemed" the appointment of such a teacher shall be treated to have been made in a substantive capacity. In the instant case it goes without saying, at the risk of repetition, that the contesting Respondents were appointed on permanent basis in 1973. 11. As a result of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the District Inspector of Schools committed a patent error of law in applying the provisions contained in Clause 3 of the Fifth Order to the benefit of the contesting Respondents. It is to be noted that the District Inspector of Schools has given no other reason in support of his order. In this Court too, the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents has not advanced any other submission except supporting the view taken by the District Inspector of Schools. 12. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned Order dated 02.02.1985 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is quashed. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 shall treat the Petitioner as senior to the respondents No. 3 and 4. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.