Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2111 (ALL)

Harendra Singh Chahar v. State Of U. P.

2010-07-20

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. - Heard Sri Ajay Bhanot learned counsel for the petitioner. The dispute lies in a very short compass inasmuch as the claim of the petitioner is that he is teaching as a lecturer in Biology in Chahar Wati Inter College, Agra which is an Institution recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder, but he is being denied salary in spite of the fact that the subject of Biology is duly sanctioned under an order of the respondents. 2. The submission of Sri Bhanot is that in view of the law laid down in the case of Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Rajni Vali (Mrs) and others, reported in, it is the obligation of the State to proceed to create a post keeping in view the requirement of the Institution and the larger interest of the students. He submits that this is an act of discrimination and, therefore, inaction on the part of the respondents amounts to impinging the rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the claim of the petitioner has been contested on the footing that there is no sanctioned post and as such no payment can be made from State coffers. To this Sri Bhanot replies by urging that the petitioner has taught in the Institution and the communication which has been brought on record amply demonstrates that the requirement is one of a permanent nature and secondly that the authorities have acknowledged the continuance of the petitioner and his services as a lecturer in Biology in the Institution. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submissions raised. A perusal of the order under which the subject of Biology was sanctioned in the Institution dated 21.12.1990 unequivocally states that the recognition is being granted under the provisions of Section 7-A(a) of the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The sine-qua-non of such recognition is that no financial aid shall be provided in case any teacher is engaged for teaching the said subject. The Institution accepted the terms and conditions way back in 1990 which has neither been challenged nor altered. In view of the aforesaid specific terms and conditions as prescribed therein, there is no occasion for this Court to infer that the post has been sanctioned with financial aid. The Institution accepted the terms and conditions way back in 1990 which has neither been challenged nor altered. In view of the aforesaid specific terms and conditions as prescribed therein, there is no occasion for this Court to infer that the post has been sanctioned with financial aid. 5. The second legal impediment in the passage of the petitioner is that payment from State coffers under the relevant rules is permissible, if the Institution is brought under the maintenance grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government. The post held by the petitioner namely the post of lecturer in Biology is not one of the sanctioned posts entitled to receive maintenance grant-in-aid. Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 is worded in prohibitory tones. It clearly creates an embargo to the effect that no Institution shall create a new post of teacher and other employee except with the previous approval of the Director of Education. There is nothing on record to indicate any such creation order by the Director. 6. The third legal impediment is that the issue as to whether a subject which has been recognized in the Institution would automatically bring about the creation of a post is now settled by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the Case of Gopal Dubey Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj and another, reported in 1999 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. Pg. 1. 7. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the contention raised by the petitioner on the strength of the decision in the case of Chandigarh Administration and others (supra) cannot be accepted as in the instant case the entire gamut of engagement, approval and payment of salary to teachers in Intermediate College is governed by specific set of statutes as noticed herein above and the law as already settled by this Court. 8. Sri Ajay Bhanot relying on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Rajesh Yadav and another Vs. Director of Education and others, reported in submits that such a claim can be considered by the State Government as the need of the Institution is established. The State Government keeping in view such financial implications brought about the provision of Section 7-A(a) which provides for sanction of subjects without financial aid. Director of Education and others, reported in submits that such a claim can be considered by the State Government as the need of the Institution is established. The State Government keeping in view such financial implications brought about the provision of Section 7-A(a) which provides for sanction of subjects without financial aid. The case of Rajesh Yadav (supra) was nowhere concerned with such a contingency and therefore on facts the present case is clearly distinguishable. 9. The insistence of Sri Bhanot that the said judgment should also be considered cannot be accepted. Paragraph 12 of the said decision clearly demonstrates that it was a case where the rejection in respect of the creation of the post related to the year 1993, when the subject was being taught in the Institution for over 24 years. The Court noticed the Full Bench judgment in the case of Gopal Dubey (supra). Accordingly the aforesaid decision does not in any way help the petitioner to enable him to claim the post as a matter of right. The ratio of the aforesaid decision would therefore not apply on the facts of the present case. 10. In the event the State Government proceeds to take any decision with regard to the creation of the post, it shall be open to the authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner or of the Institution as the case may be. 11. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.