Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 550 (ALL)

Chameli Devi v. State of U. P.

2016-02-16

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. The petitioner claims to be a Class-IV employee in a Junior High School namely Vaishnavi Balika Pura Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kuwan, Kaundhiyara, Allahabad. The said institution is a recognised institution and is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The said institution has been brought on the grant-in-aid list on 1.12.2006. 2. The petitioner claims to be initially appointed on 19th September,1998 and her appointment is said to be approved by the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 19th September, 1998 along with other teachers and non-teaching staff. A copy of the approval order issued by the office of the District Basic Education Officer dated 19th September, 1998 is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is stated when the institution was brought on the grant-in-aid list the name of the petitioner was shown to be working as Class-IV Employee. 3. It is stated that the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) granted permission for release of salary of the teachers and other employees but in respect of the release of petitioner's salary objection was raised. In this regard the petitioner made several representations. On one such representation made by the petitioner the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Allahabad Region, Allahabad has issued a direction to the Block Education Officer, to submit a report. A copy of the communication has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is stated at the Bar that in compliance of the order of the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) the Block Education Officer has not submitted any report. 4. In the meantime one Ram Singh preferred Writ Petition No. 68185 of 2015 (Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others) before this Court for a direction upon the educational authorities to appoint him on compassionate ground as his father was working in another institution namely Vishnu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Swami Viddhayanand Dham, Rasulpur, Handia, Allahabad and he died in harness on 10th August, 2011. In the said writ petition this Court on 21.12.2015 has issued an interim mandamus. The order dated 21.12.2015 reads as under: - "The petitioner's father was an Assistant Teacher in Vishnu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Swami Vidyanand Dham, Handia, Allahabad. Unfortunately he died on 10th August,2011. The petitioner has moved an application for his appointment on compassionate ground. In the said writ petition this Court on 21.12.2015 has issued an interim mandamus. The order dated 21.12.2015 reads as under: - "The petitioner's father was an Assistant Teacher in Vishnu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Swami Vidyanand Dham, Handia, Allahabad. Unfortunately he died on 10th August,2011. The petitioner has moved an application for his appointment on compassionate ground. It is stated that the committee of management has passed a resolution for his appointment on the post of peon or any other suitable post on compassionate ground. The grievance of the petitioner that his representation has not been considered by the District Basic Education Officer. When no action was taken the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 16632 of 2015 (Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others) before this Court, which was disposed of on 30.3.2015 by issuing a direction upon the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders with regard to the appointment of the petitioner in an institution, if he has validly been appointed. In compliance thereof the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad has issued a direction to the Committee of Management for the joining of the petitioner in the institution in question and it has also been mentioned that in case Committee of Management fails to comply his order a recommendation shall be made for the appointment of the authorized controller. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the order of the District Basic Education Officer, dated 18.6.2015 the Committee of Management has not permitted the petitioner to join the institution. It is trite law that there should not be delay in the appointment on compassionate ground. From the record it appears that the fourth respondent has taken an adamant attitude in complying the order of the District Basic Education Officer Allahabad, which in turn has been passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad on the direction of this Court dated 30.3.2015. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, an interim mandamus is issued upon the District Basic Education Officer to ensure the appointment of the petitioner in the institution within six weeks and in case the Committee of Management does not permit the petitioner to join the post he shall initiate steps to appoint the authorized controller within the same period. List the matter on 16th February, 2016. List the matter on 16th February, 2016. The petitioner may take out dasti to serve the fourth respondent outside of the Court within ten days." 5. It appears that aggrieved by the said order the Committee of Management of the institution has preferred a Special Appeal No. 31 of 2016 (C/M Vaishnavi Balika Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.), which was dismissed as not pressed. 6. I have heard learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the instant writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 2843 of 2016 (Smt. Chameli Devi v. State of U.P. and others) and in Writ Petition No. 68185 of 2015 (Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others) wherein the committee of management the respondent no.4 in that writ petition has filed Stay Application and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 in the instant writ petition and for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 68185 of 2015 (Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others) and learned Standing Counsel. 7. From the approval order of the District Basic Education Officer, it is evident that the petitioner's appointment was approved on 19th September, 1998. The petitioner claims that she is still working. It appears that the dispute was raised with respect to the educational qualification of the petitioner. The petitioner has brought on the record her School Leaving Certificate which indicate that she has passed her Class- 5 Examination on 19.5.1988 and her date of birth has been shown to be 11th March, 1978. 8. The fact that petitioner is still working and she possess the essential qualification is engaging the attention of the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) is evident from the communication dated 16.5.2015 addressed to the Block Education Officer. 9. Concededly, the fourth respondent who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 68185 of 2015, was appointed on compassionate ground in the institution in question and not in the institution where his later father was working. There is no statutory provisions for appointment on compassionate ground in a Junior High School which is govern under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Teachers) Rules, 1978. By the executive orders the State Government has extended the benefit of dying in harness to the dependant of the teachers/employees who dies in harness. 10. By the executive orders the State Government has extended the benefit of dying in harness to the dependant of the teachers/employees who dies in harness. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that ends of justice requires that the Assistant Director of Education(Basic) may consider the cause of the petitioner in the instant case and cause of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 68185 of 2015 (Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others) after calling necessary comments from the Block Education Officer and he shall furnish opportunity to the both the petitioner i.e. to the petitioner in the instant case and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 68185 of 2015 (Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others), the Committee of Management and the Head Master of the Institution. 11. The fourth respondent is at liberty to raise all the objections which he wants to point out against the qualification etc. of the petitioner and the said objection be filed within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Assistant Director of Education (Basic) is directed to pass the order expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and order both the writ petition i.e. instant writ petition and Writ Petition No. 68185 of 2015 (Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others) are disposed of. 13. The interim mandamus issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 68185 of 2015 (Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others) stands vacated. The impugned order dated 22.1.2014 and 18.6.2015 shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic). In case the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) finds that the appointment of the petitioner of the instant writ petition (Smt. Chameli Devi) is valid in the institution in that event he shall consider the eligibility of the appointment of the respondent no.4 (Ram Singh) in some other Institution. 14. No order as to costs.