Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4024 (ALL)

D. I. O. S. ALLD. v. NAGENDRA BAHADUR SINGH

2016-12-15

ARUN TANDON, SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.5.2002 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11446 of 1983. 3. Facts relevant for deciding the controversy are as under : Shiv Intermediate College, Katahra, District Allahabad is a recognized and aided Intermediate College. The provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921, (herein after referred to as the Act, 1921) and the regulations framed thereunder and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder are fully applicable on the faculty members of the institution. 4. The petitioner-Nagendra Bahadur Singh has approached the writ Court by means of the aforesaid writ petition with the prayer that a mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as confirmed Lecturer (Civics) and to pay him salary as Lecturer (Civics) with effect from 21.5.1976. 5. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 2 of his judgment has recorded that Shri V.K.Singh, Advocate has been heard on behalf of the petitioner, Shri S.N.Tripathi, Advocate has been heard on behalf of one Kamla Shankar Srivastava, Lecturer (History) and the learned Standing Counsel. It is then stated that there is no private respondent in this petition. 6. The statement made in that regard appears to be incorrect as the Committee of Management of Shiv Intermediate College, Allahabad was respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. One of the prayer made is that the respondents may be directed not to interfere with the working of the petitioner. Therefore, an opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management, Shiv intermediate College, Allahabad in the matter was essential. In absence thereof the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is rendered bad. 7. Even otherwise we find that the learned Single Judge in his order has recorded that once the approval has been granted by the District Inspector of Schools to the ad hoc appointment against a clear vacancy caused against a substantive post, the question of petitioner being possessed of Degree of M.A. or his being possessed of five years’ experience as L.T. Grade Teacher for being promoted as Lecturer loses its importance in view of the provisions of Section 16-GG added to the Act, 1921. 8. 8. In our opinion the finding so returned by the learned Single Judge is based on non-consideration of the aforesaid Section. From a simple reading of sub-section 1 of Section 16-GG of the Act, 1921 it is clear that only those candidates are entitled to be regularized who on the date of their ad hoc appointment had been appointed against a clear vacancy and possessed the minimum qualification. Therefore, the minimum required to ascertained before invoking the provisions of Section 16-GG. It was to ascertain as to whether the petitioner on the date he was appointed as ad hoc Lecturer (Civics) possessed the prescribed minimum qualification i.e. M.A. In the subject of Civics or not. The issue in that regard cannot be said to have lost the importance merely because the District Inspector of Schools has approved the appointment. 9. The order of the District Inspector of the Schools cannot be in violation of the provisions of Section 16-GG of the Act, 1921, which aspect of the matter has not been taken care of by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.5.2002 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is restored to its original number. Let the writ petition be decided afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management, Shiv Intermediate College, Katahra, Allahabad, in light of the observations made herein above. 10. Special appeal is allowed.