Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R.B. MAURYA versus THE D.I.O.S.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


R.B. Maurya v. The D.I.O.S. - WRIT - C No. 14346 of 1981 [2006] RD-AH 448 (6 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




Sri Ram Briksha Maurya and another.              ..Petitioners


The District Inspector of Schools and others.  ...Respondents


Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The present petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 13.11.81 passed by the District Inspector Of Schools-respondent No.1, by which he has revoked the selection grade granted to the petitioners on 19th July, 1980.  The petitioners' case is that they were appointed in the college initially in the year 1965 as Assistant Teachers.  Then, they attained the minimum prescribed qualification and became Assistant Teachers in the College in the J.T.C. Grade.  In the year 1972 they became B.A./B.E.D. and, subsequently, by the G.O. dated 19th March, 1977, they were promoted in the C.T. Grade.  

Another Government Order was issued on 3.11.78 clarifying and implementing pay scales rendered by the pay committee.  This is appended as Annexure-III to the writ petition.  According to this G.O., the Assistant Teacher who has completed 10 years of service would become eligible to a selection grade.  

There were some correspondences between the Committee of Management and the D.I.O.S. and by order-dated 19.7.80, the selection grade was granted to the petitioners.

Subsequently, a Government Order was issued on 23.3.81, by which, it was spelled out that the services of J.TC teachers or B.T.C. teachers are not to be covered in selecting in B.T. Grade.  

I have perused the Government Order dated 3.11.78, which clearly spells out that only those persons who were working in the C.T. Grade for the last ten years would become eligible for selection grade.  

Admittedly, the petitioners came into C.T. grade in the year 1972; therefore, 10 years would be completed in the year 1982.  By the impugned order, the D.I.O.S. has held that the two petitioners were wrongly given the selection grade without having completed 10 years in the C.T. grade category.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that nowhere in the G.O. which were relevant at that time, it has been laid down that 10 years of service which was to be counted could not include the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the J.T.C. Grade or in the B.T.C. Grade and according to the petitioner, his time for being appointed in the selected grade getting ripe in the year 1956 when they have completed ten years of service.  Learned counsel for the petitioner, for this purpose, has relied on a decision of this Court as reported in 2004(2) U.P. Local Bodies  2066 wherein this Court examined the Government Orders applicable to the case of B.T. Grade, came to the conclusion that there was no power in the Government Order concerned not to include the earlier orders of service in J.T.C. and B.T.C. grade.

However, the facts of that case are different from the facts in the present case.  The G.O. dated 3.11.78 clearly spells out that the person would become eligible to be appointed in the select grade after having done 10 years of service and having satisfied the qualifications.  The case of the petitioners, according to my opinion, became ripe for being considered in the selection grade in the year 1982.

The petitioner, however, argues otherwise and maintains his arguments that he had gained eligibility for being considered for selection grade in 1975 itself.  The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has also appeared and argued that there were only two posts in selection grade in the year 1980 and all persons had retired now and in case the order is modified, consequences will flow.  He apprehends that the money paid to him is to be recovered from him if such selection is set aside or modified.  

In paragraph-13 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made a clear averment that the order dated 13.11.1981 which was passed by the D.I.O.S. was passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing and his selection which was given to him in the year 1980 has been wrongly revoked.  This contention of the petitioner has force in it.  It is clear from the record that, in fact, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before his selection grade was revoked.  The impugned order dated 13.11.1981 definitely suffers from the principle of natural justice. The selection grade has been given to the petitioner by the authorities concerned they. While revoking the said selection grade, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner.  That not being done, the order-dated 13.11.1981 is vitiated.  The order-dated 13.11.1981 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. I further remand the matter to the D.I.O.S. to consider the matter afresh, after giving all parties concerned a proper opportunity of hearing in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.  

With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 6.1.06



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.