Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 598 (ALL)

HARI PRASAD SHUKLA v. STATE OF U P

2008-03-14

RAN VIJAI SINGH, YATINDRA SINGH

body2008
YATINDRA SINGH AND RAN VIJAI SINGH, JJ. ( 1 ) THERE is a society called Allahabad Polytechnic Society, Allahabad (the Society ). It is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The office bearers and members of its executive are ex-officio Government servants or nominated by the Government. It is not disputed that it is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution. It runs a institute calls Institute of Engineering and Rural technology (IERT ). The salaries for the teachers and employees of the IERT are given by the State Government. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in the present writ petition are teachers/instructors at the IERT. They have been appointed on different posts on different dates. Amongst the petitioners, the persons who was appointed earliest is, Sri virendra Singh Rathor, who was appointed on 12. 7. 1978 and the person who was appointed last is Sri Nazibul Hassan, who was appointed on 8. 2. 1988. They continued to receive their salary since their appointment without any objection. In the month of June, 1998 the salaries of the teachers/instructors were stopped. Thereafter, the Director of Technical Education passed an order on 10,8. 1998. By this order the appointment of 33 teachers was approved; the appointment of eleven was disapproved and in two cases the matter was referred to the State Government. By the subsequent order dated 1. 9. 1998, he further approved appointment of three more persons and the appointment of 10 persons remain unapproved. ( 3 ) THE Commissioner, Allahabad was the authorised controller of the institute. He made a representation to the State Government on 15. 1. 1999 for granting approval to the appointment of the teachers who were not approved. This was declined by the State Government on 20. 1. 1999 stating therein that there is no mistake in the order of the Director dated 10. 8. 1998 and in case any further representation is to be made, it should be first filed before the Director technical Education. Thereafter the authorised controller again representation before the Director on 3. 2. 1999. This has been rejected on 5. 2. 1999. Out of these 10 persons, 8 have filed the present writ petitions. ( 4 ) WE have heard Counsel for the petitioner, standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri A. K. Singh for the Society. ( 5 ) THE petitioners were appointed on the different dates. 2. 1999. This has been rejected on 5. 2. 1999. Out of these 10 persons, 8 have filed the present writ petitions. ( 4 ) WE have heard Counsel for the petitioner, standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri A. K. Singh for the Society. ( 5 ) THE petitioners were appointed on the different dates. However, they had worked for more than ten years at the time when objection was raised. In case approval was not obtained or there was some defect then the action should have be taken earlier. There is no justification to raise objection and disapprove the appointment after ten years. Apart from it, on merit too there seems to be no justification for disapproving to the appointments of the petitioners. ( 6 ) IN W. P. Nos. 6261 of 1999 and 6264 of 1999, the approval has not been granted on the ground that on the date of their appointment namely 12. 7. 1978 and 25. 7. 1986, the petitioners had not completed minimum prescribed age of 21 years. They completed 21 years of age in May, 1979 and November 1986-much before the objection was taken. In fitness of things the approval should not have been refused. ( 7 ) IN WP No. 6611 of 1999, the approval has not been granted on the ground that the petitioner had secured 64. 15% marks whereas the minimum qualification was 65%. The petitioner in this case was appointed on 14. 8. 1978. This objection was taken approximately after 20 years. Considering the fact that there is considerable delay and there is power under section 24-E (1) of u. P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 to relax the minimum qualification, this ought to have been relaxed and the approval should have been granted. ( 8 ) IN Writ Petition No. 6617 of 1999, approval has not been granted on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor in mechanical, but he has obtained diploma in Tool Engineering. A meeting in technical department under the chairmanship of the then Technical Minister was held on 30. 8. 1979 for giving parity to different diploma. In this meeting it was decided that the course of Mechanical Engineering includes Tool Engineering as well as refrigeration and Air Condition Engineering. Subsequently, the GO No. 110760 ed dated 17. 11. 1979 was issued, reiterating the same thing. 8. 1979 for giving parity to different diploma. In this meeting it was decided that the course of Mechanical Engineering includes Tool Engineering as well as refrigeration and Air Condition Engineering. Subsequently, the GO No. 110760 ed dated 17. 11. 1979 was issued, reiterating the same thing. This shows that the Government itself was treating the Tool Engineering as part of Mechanical engineering. The petitioner was appointed 13 years ago. He was appointed treating Tool Engineering as part of the Mechanical Engineering. He can not be faulted. His appointment ought to have been approved. ( 9 ) IN Writ Petition No. 6664 of 1999, approval has not been granted on the ground that the petitioner was appointed in the department of plastic technology but he possess the diploma of engineering in refrigeration and air conditioning. The petitioner alongwith the writ petition has filed his appointment letter as well as confirmation letter. The petitioner was appointed on 7. 8. 1984 as instructor engineering and has been confirmed as Instructor Engineering in mechanical faculty. It shows that the petitioner in this case was appointed in mechanical department. A reference to the meeting dated 30. 8. 1979 and the GO dated 17. 11. 1979 has been made in the preceding paragraph. In the meeting and go the diploma in refrigeration and air conditioning was treated as part of the mechanical engineering and as such the Director ought to have approved the appointment. ( 10 ) IN Writ Petition Nos. 673. 0 of 1999 and 6736 of 1999, the petitioners were appointed as Lecturer in Computer Science and System Analyst on 9. 3. 1987 and 8. 2. 1988 respectively. Subsequently, the petitioner in writ petition No. 6736 of 1999 was appointed as Lecturer computer science in 1991. The Director did not take any decision in their regard but referred their cases to the State government. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated, that it has been rejected but no reasons has been indicated. ( 11 ) IN Writ Petition No. 6730 of 1999, the petitioner is M. Sc. (Physics) with electronics. He is also post graduate in computer science. The petitioner in Writ petition No. 6736 of 1999 was B. Sc. (Science) and six months advance computer programming in Basic and three months full time certificate in computer programming. ( 11 ) IN Writ Petition No. 6730 of 1999, the petitioner is M. Sc. (Physics) with electronics. He is also post graduate in computer science. The petitioner in Writ petition No. 6736 of 1999 was B. Sc. (Science) and six months advance computer programming in Basic and three months full time certificate in computer programming. Subsequently, he has also obtained degree of Master in computer application in 2003 and degree of Master of Technology in Software Engineering in 2006. No minimum qualification was prescribed at the time of their appointment. They had requisite minimum qualification according to the advertisement for their recruitment. They have been appointed and there was no fault on their part. They have been teaching for more than 10 years. There seems to be no justification for not granting approval to their appointments too. The director instead of returning their cases to the State Government should have granted the approval. ( 12 ) IN Writ Petition No. 7471 of 1999, the petitioner was appointed as assistant Workshop Superintendent on 1. 4. 1982. He at the time of appointment had diploma in Advance Woodwork which is equivalent to ITI. Subsequently, he also obtained diploma in mechanical engineering in 1996. For this post also there was no minimum qualification prescribed. The petitioner had qualification as mentioned in the advertisement for the recruitment. This case is similar to the case of the Writ Petition No. 6730 of 1999 and 6736 of 1999 and the director should not have refused approval. ( 13 ) IN view of above, all the writ petitions are allowed. The orders dated 10. 8. 1998, 20. 1. 1999 and 5. 2. 1999 in respect of the petitioners are quashed. The matter is sent back to the Director Technical Education, U. P. Kanpur to consider grant approval to their appointment in light of the observation made in this judgment. In all the writ petitions, the interim orders were granted directing the respondents to pay regular monthly salary to the petitioners. It is hereby clarified that till decision on approval is taken, the respondents will continue to pay the salary. With these observations, the writ petitions are allowed. Petitions Allowed. .