Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3657 (ALL)

Ram Kinkar Pandey v. State of U. P.

2016-11-08

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT V.K. Shukla and Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,JJ. Ram Kinkar Pandey and two others are before this Court, assailing the validity of the order dated 17.12.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36874 of 2003 (Ram Kinkar Pandey and others Versus State of U.P. and others), wherein learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with cost of Rs. 10,000 against each one of the petitioners. 2. Brief background of the case is that there has been an institution known as Siddarth Shiksha Niketan Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Tetri Bazar, District Siddarth Nagar, initially recognized as Junior High School and then upgraded to High School in the year 1984. Petitioner-appellant no.1 claims to have been appointed in the institution on 01.07.1981 and further claims that his appointment had been approved on 18.03.1983 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti. Petitioner-appellant no.2 claims to have been appointed in the institution on 28.08.1988 and further claims that his appointment had been approved on 24.02.1991 by the District Inspector of Schools. Petitioner no.3 claims to have been appointed on 10.04.1989 and further claims that his appointment had also been approved on 29.02.1991 by the District Inspector of Schools, Siddharth Nagar. Institution in question has been brought in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government on 01.04.1996 and thus the provisions of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and others Employees) Act, 1971 became applicable in the institution in question. Petitioners-appellants submit that Joint Director of Education vide order dated 17.07.1997 passed order for ensuring payment of salary to the teachers and other employees of the institution, however, said order maintained complete silent in reference of the petitioner-appellants and same impelled the petitioner-appellants to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25554 of 1997 and this Court on 05.08.1997 passed order directing the Joint Director of Education to consider the claim and to pass reasoned order. Petitioner-appellants submit that thereafter Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti on 17.05.1999 passed order for ensuring payment of salary. Petitioner-appellants submit that consequential order dated 20.06.1999 was issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Siddharthnagar, but no payment was made. 3. Petitioner-appellants submit that thereafter Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti on 17.05.1999 passed order for ensuring payment of salary. Petitioner-appellants submit that consequential order dated 20.06.1999 was issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Siddharthnagar, but no payment was made. 3. From the record, it is reflected that Sri Dwarika Prasad, Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti proceeded to inform the authorities concern vide letter dated 13.10.1999 that various orders have been issued under his forged signature, and accordingly pursuant to said situation directive was issued for keeping salary of petitioner-appellants be kept on hold. At the said juncture Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31283 of 2002 had been filed by the petitioner-appellant no.1 to pass order and then order impugned had been passed wherein entire proceeding were found to be forged, and thus petitioner-appellants filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36874 of 2003 and learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition in question, against which present special appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants contented with vehemence that in the present case appointment of petitioner-appellants had been made in accordance with law and wrongly order dated 17.05.1999 had been passed by the Joint Director of Education, and in view of this, learned Single Judge has grossly erred in law at the point of time when he has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with costs and with further other direction, as such present Special Appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand supported the decision taken by the learned Single Judge by mentioning that entire claim of petitioner-appellants is based on fraud and manipulation and at no point of time any selection or appointment had been made, in view of this finding of fact as returned by the authority concern and as ratified by the learned Single Judge, same warrants no interference. 6. Management in its turn has supported the version set up by petitioner-appellant. 7. We have the occasion to peruse the judgement of learned Single Judge as well as factual situation that is so emerging in the present case, that as far as petitioner-appellant no.1 is concerned, he claims to have been appointed in the institution on 01.07.1981 and his appointment had been approved on 18.03.1983 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti. 7. We have the occasion to peruse the judgement of learned Single Judge as well as factual situation that is so emerging in the present case, that as far as petitioner-appellant no.1 is concerned, he claims to have been appointed in the institution on 01.07.1981 and his appointment had been approved on 18.03.1983 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti. Suffice is to mention that when petitioner-appellant no.1 claims that he has been appointed in the institution concern, then selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the recognized Junior High School was governed by the provisions of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. In the present case accepted position is that at no point of time as is envisaged under Rule, any exercise has been undertaken, as vacancies have never been advertised, and at no point of time, any selection committee has been constituted to carry out the selection wherein nominee of District Basic Education has been indicated. Coupled with this, under the provisions of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, appointment letter cannot be issued unless and until there is approval by the authority concern and here petitioner-appellant no.1 claims that he has been appointed in the institution on 01.07.1981 and his appointment had been approved on 18.03.1983 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti. Most surprising feature in reference of petitioner-appellant no.1 is that he was untrained teacher at that point of time and qua him there was two approval letter, one in Hindi and one in English. 8. Once such has been the factual situation in reference of petitioner-appellant no.1 that large scale manipulation has been found by the authority concern at the point of time when the claim of the petitioner-appellant no.1 has been examined wherein the Joint Director of Education has dealt with in extenso about the large scale infirmities in the appointment of petitioner-appellant no.1 and has clearly concluded that entire proceeding are manipulated and forged one. In reference of petitioner-appellant nos.2 and 3, both of them claim to have been appointed on 28.08.1988 and 10.04.1989 and their appointment have been approved on 24.02.1991 respectively. The appointment of both the incumbents is totally de-hors the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and regulations framed thereunder. In reference of petitioner-appellant nos.2 and 3, both of them claim to have been appointed on 28.08.1988 and 10.04.1989 and their appointment have been approved on 24.02.1991 respectively. The appointment of both the incumbents is totally de-hors the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and regulations framed thereunder. The period when these two incumbents claim to have been appointed provisions of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and the various Removal of Difficulties order had already been therein the statute book and at no point of time their appointment had ever been made as per the procedure known to law. Petitioner-appellant nos. 2 and 3 have miserably failed to demonstrate that they have ever been validly appointed. 9. Both the petitioner-appellant nos. 2 and 3 namely Anirudh Kumar Chaubey and Jai Prakash Pandey have been shown as un-trained teacher, whereas there has been no provision of appointment under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Act No. V of 1982 of untrained teacher. Appointment of both these incumbents is null and void and out come of manipulation as in the attendance sheet of November, 1995 their name is not at all there and to cover up the same mention has been made in the rejoinder affidavit of Ram Kinkar Pandey that teaching work in the institution was imparted in two sessions. Inspection has been made of one session whereas petitioner-appellant nos. 2 and 3 were discharging duty in second session. 10. Consequently, once such has been the factual situation pertaining to the appointment of petitioner-appellants and same has been noted in extenso in the order dated 05.05.2003, and in reference of the order dated 17.05.1999, on enquiry being made,it has been clearly reflected that there is reference of letter in the dispatch register, but in the entire record that has been so maintained in the office of District Inspector of Schools, no such order is available. Such state of affairs has been noted by the Joint Director of Education in the order dated 05.05.2003 and as entire claim of petitioner-appellants has been found to be forged and fabricated and the appointment of petitioner-appellants on its face value as noted above is clearly de-hors the statutory provisions, as such learned Single Judge is right at the point of time when he has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition in question. 11. With the above, present Special Appeal stands dismissed.