Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. ANJANA KUMAR AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Anjana Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 62331 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 9834 (18 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

      Reserved

Writ petition No.62331 of 2005

Smt. Anjana Kumar and another.......................................Petitioners

Versus.

State of U.P. and others....................................................Respondents.

..........

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Two posts of Assistant Teachers fell vacant in Christian Girls High School, Shahjahanpur which is a minority institution. The Management, sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur  to fill up the posts, which was granted by the inspector by an order dated 10.7.2003. In pursuance thereof, an advertisement was issued in two newspapers, namely,  ' Amar Ujala and the 'Times of India'. The Selection Committee recommended the petitioners' name for being appointed as Assistant Teachers on 29.5.2004.

The Committee of Management by a letter dated 14.6.2004 forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for  necessary approval. Since no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management, after waiting for more than four months, issued the appointment letters dated 8.11.2004 in favour of the petitioners and, informed the Inspector by its letter dated 17.11.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter,  and eventually, by the impugned order dated 7.9.2005, refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher.

Heard Shri V.K.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The Inspector has refused to accord the approval to the appointments of the petitioners on the ground that the appointment was made by the Committee of Management prior to seeking approval

.2.

from the Inspector and that the appointments were contrary to the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, which provided that the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section was required to be made only after taking permission from the State Government. Further, the  Inspector held that as per the advertisement,  preference was be given to a candidate who had the qualifications to teach Hindi and Sanskrit subjects, whereas the  petitioner No.1 had English, Economics and Social Science as subjects in his  graduation degree.

The appointments of teachers in a minority institution are governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act readwith Regulation 20 of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the said Act. Section 16 FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921 reads as under:-

"16-FF.Savings as to minority institutions(1)Notwithstanding anything in sub-section(4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause(1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management:  

Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall-

(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution, be    an expert selected by the Committee of management from a    panel of experts prepared by the Director;

( b) in the case of appointment of a teacher , be the Head of the     Institution concerned.

(2)The procedure to be allowed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as maybe prescribed.

(3)No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless-

.3.

(a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education ; and

(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.

(4)The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible.

(5)Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case maybe, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section, the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of a teacher.

(6)Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub- section (5) shall be final."

Clause 4 of Section 16-FF clearly indicates that the authority cannot withhold the approval for the selection made where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and was otherwise eligible.

The procedure for holding the selection is contemplated under Regulation 17 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and these regulations cannot override the sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. In Karunesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ Petition No.35525 of 2004, decided on 27.5.2005, it has been held that

.4.

Regulation 20 of Chapter II are only by way of guidelines to be followed for the benefit of the Selection Committee and cannot override the provisions of sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the Act. Consequently, a mere irregularity in the procedure would not make the appointment illegal unless the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications.

 The finding that the appointment was made by the Management prior to the approval granted by the Inspector, and therefore, such appointments were illegal is patently misconceived. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was forwarded by the Committee of Management on 14.6.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter for more than one year and did nothing   in the matter. The appointment letters were issued by the Management after more than 4 months from the date of forwarding the papers to the Inspector, and  therefore, sufficient time was given to the Inspector to take a decision. The Management is not expected to wait  indefinitely for a decision to be taken by the Inspector. Consequently, no irregularity was committed by the Committee of Management in issuing the appointment letters where the Inspector failed to pass orders within a reasonable period. In any case, an appointment letter can be issued by the Management in anticipation of the approval to be granted by the District Inspector of Schools as held in Smt. Ranjana Agarwal vs. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 1994 AWC 1108.  

The submissions of the Standing Counsel that the appointments were made against the provisions of the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, namely, that previous permission was required from the State Government to fill up the appointment in a primary school is patently erroneous. Since the institution is a minority institution, the provisions regarding appointment is government by Section '16FF' of the Intermediate Education Act, which does not provide such restriction for obtaining previous

.5.

permission from the State Government. The appointment in a minority institution is governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act read with Chapter II Regulation 17 of the Regulations framed under the said Act. The District Inspector of Schools can only refuse to accord  approval to the appointment on the ground that the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications. Further, the Act provides that previous permission was required to be obtained from the District Inspector of Schools which in the present case was granted by the Inspector vide order dated 10.7.2006.

The submission  of the learned Standing Counsel that the advertisement contemplated that preference would be given to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit and Hindi subjects, and that, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner No.1, who did not graduate from these subjects, and therefore, his appointment could not be approved is patently erroneous, inasmuch as the petitioner No.1 has the requisite qualifications to teach the students. The Selection Committee had the prerogative to give preference to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit as well as  Hindi. No finding has been given by the Inspector to the effect that there were other candidates who had Sanskrit and Hindi as a subject in B.A., and could also teach those subjects. Further the District Inspector of Schools has no where given the finding that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass orders afresh  for the grant of the approval to the appointment of the petitioners within one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

Dated: May 18, 2006

SFH

   

      Reserved

Writ petition No.62331 of 2005

Smt. Anjana Kumar and another.......................................Petitioners

Versus.

State of U.P. and others....................................................Respondents.

..........

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Two posts of Assistant Teachers fell vacant in Christian Girls High School, Shahjahanpur which is a minority institution. The Management, sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur  to fill up the posts, which was granted by the inspector by an order dated 10.7.2003. In pursuance thereof, an advertisement was issued in two newspapers, namely,  ' Amar Ujala and the 'Times of India'. The Selection Committee recommended the petitioners' name for being appointed as Assistant Teachers on 29.5.2004.

The Committee of Management by a letter dated 14.6.2004 forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for  necessary approval. Since no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management, after waiting for more than four months, issued the appointment letters dated 8.11.2004 in favour of the petitioners and, informed the Inspector by its letter dated 17.11.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter,  and eventually, by the impugned order dated 7.9.2005, refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher.

Heard Shri V.K.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The Inspector has refused to accord the approval to the appointments of the petitioners on the ground that the appointment was made by the Committee of Management prior to seeking approval

.2.

from the Inspector and that the appointments were contrary to the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, which provided that the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section was required to be made only after taking permission from the State Government. Further, the  Inspector held that as per the advertisement,  preference was be given to a candidate who had the qualifications to teach Hindi and Sanskrit subjects, whereas the  petitioner No.1 had English, Economics and Social Science as subjects in his  graduation degree.

The appointments of teachers in a minority institution are governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act readwith Regulation 20 of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the said Act. Section 16 FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921 reads as under:-

"16-FF.Savings as to minority institutions(1)Notwithstanding anything in sub-section(4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause(1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management:  

Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall-

(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution, be    an expert selected by the Committee of management from a    panel of experts prepared by the Director;

( b) in the case of appointment of a teacher , be the Head of the     Institution concerned.

(2)The procedure to be allowed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as maybe prescribed.

(3)No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless-

.3.

(a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education ; and

(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.

(4)The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible.

(5)Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case maybe, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section, the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of a teacher.

(6)Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub- section (5) shall be final."

Clause 4 of Section 16-FF clearly indicates that the authority cannot withhold the approval for the selection made where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and was otherwise eligible.

The procedure for holding the selection is contemplated under Regulation 17 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and these regulations cannot override the sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. In Karunesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ Petition No.35525 of 2004, decided on 27.5.2005, it has been held that

.4.

Regulation 20 of Chapter II are only by way of guidelines to be followed for the benefit of the Selection Committee and cannot override the provisions of sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the Act. Consequently, a mere irregularity in the procedure would not make the appointment illegal unless the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications.

 The finding that the appointment was made by the Management prior to the approval granted by the Inspector, and therefore, such appointments were illegal is patently misconceived. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was forwarded by the Committee of Management on 14.6.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter for more than one year and did nothing   in the matter. The appointment letters were issued by the Management after more than 4 months from the date of forwarding the papers to the Inspector, and  therefore, sufficient time was given to the Inspector to take a decision. The Management is not expected to wait  indefinitely for a decision to be taken by the Inspector. Consequently, no irregularity was committed by the Committee of Management in issuing the appointment letters where the Inspector failed to pass orders within a reasonable period. In any case, an appointment letter can be issued by the Management in anticipation of the approval to be granted by the District Inspector of Schools as held in Smt. Ranjana Agarwal vs. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 1994 AWC 1108.  

The submissions of the Standing Counsel that the appointments were made against the provisions of the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, namely, that previous permission was required from the State Government to fill up the appointment in a primary school is patently erroneous. Since the institution is a minority institution, the provisions regarding appointment is government by Section '16FF' of the Intermediate Education Act, which does not provide such restriction for obtaining previous

.5.

permission from the State Government. The appointment in a minority institution is governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act read with Chapter II Regulation 17 of the Regulations framed under the said Act. The District Inspector of Schools can only refuse to accord  approval to the appointment on the ground that the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications. Further, the Act provides that previous permission was required to be obtained from the District Inspector of Schools which in the present case was granted by the Inspector vide order dated 10.7.2006.

The submission  of the learned Standing Counsel that the advertisement contemplated that preference would be given to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit and Hindi subjects, and that, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner No.1, who did not graduate from these subjects, and therefore, his appointment could not be approved is patently erroneous, inasmuch as the petitioner No.1 has the requisite qualifications to teach the students. The Selection Committee had the prerogative to give preference to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit as well as  Hindi. No finding has been given by the Inspector to the effect that there were other candidates who had Sanskrit and Hindi as a subject in B.A., and could also teach those subjects. Further the District Inspector of Schools has no where given the finding that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass orders afresh  for the grant of the approval to the appointment of the petitioners within one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

Dated: May _____2006

SFH

      Reserved

Writ petition No.62331 of 2005

Smt. Anjana Kumar and another.......................................Petitioners

Versus.

State of U.P. and others....................................................Respondents.

..........

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Two posts of Assistant Teachers fell vacant in Christian Girls High School, Shahjahanpur which is a minority institution. The Management, sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur  to fill up the posts, which was granted by the inspector by an order dated 10.7.2003. In pursuance thereof, an advertisement was issued in two newspapers, namely,  ' Amar Ujala and the 'Times of India'. The Selection Committee recommended the petitioners' name for being appointed as Assistant Teachers on 29.5.2004.

The Committee of Management by a letter dated 14.6.2004 forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for  necessary approval. Since no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management, after waiting for more than four months, issued the appointment letters dated 8.11.2004 in favour of the petitioners and, informed the Inspector by its letter dated 17.11.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter,  and eventually, by the impugned order dated 7.9.2005, refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher.

Heard Shri V.K.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The Inspector has refused to accord the approval to the appointments of the petitioners on the ground that the appointment was made by the Committee of Management prior to seeking approval

.2.

from the Inspector and that the appointments were contrary to the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, which provided that the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section was required to be made only after taking permission from the State Government. Further, the  Inspector held that as per the advertisement,  preference was be given to a candidate who had the qualifications to teach Hindi and Sanskrit subjects, whereas the  petitioner No.1 had English, Economics and Social Science as subjects in his  graduation degree.

The appointments of teachers in a minority institution are governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act readwith Regulation 20 of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the said Act. Section 16 FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921 reads as under:-

"16-FF.Savings as to minority institutions(1)Notwithstanding anything in sub-section(4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause(1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management:  

Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall-

(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution, be    an expert selected by the Committee of management from a    panel of experts prepared by the Director;

( b) in the case of appointment of a teacher , be the Head of the     Institution concerned.

(2)The procedure to be allowed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as maybe prescribed.

(3)No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless-

.3.

(a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education ; and

(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.

(4)The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible.

(5)Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case maybe, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section, the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of a teacher.

(6)Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub- section (5) shall be final."

Clause 4 of Section 16-FF clearly indicates that the authority cannot withhold the approval for the selection made where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and was otherwise eligible.

The procedure for holding the selection is contemplated under Regulation 17 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and these regulations cannot override the sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. In Karunesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ Petition No.35525 of 2004, decided on 27.5.2005, it has been held that

.4.

Regulation 20 of Chapter II are only by way of guidelines to be followed for the benefit of the Selection Committee and cannot override the provisions of sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the Act. Consequently, a mere irregularity in the procedure would not make the appointment illegal unless the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications.

 The finding that the appointment was made by the Management prior to the approval granted by the Inspector, and therefore, such appointments were illegal is patently misconceived. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was forwarded by the Committee of Management on 14.6.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter for more than one year and did nothing   in the matter. The appointment letters were issued by the Management after more than 4 months from the date of forwarding the papers to the Inspector, and  therefore, sufficient time was given to the Inspector to take a decision. The Management is not expected to wait  indefinitely for a decision to be taken by the Inspector. Consequently, no irregularity was committed by the Committee of Management in issuing the appointment letters where the Inspector failed to pass orders within a reasonable period. In any case, an appointment letter can be issued by the Management in anticipation of the approval to be granted by the District Inspector of Schools as held in Smt. Ranjana Agarwal vs. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 1994 AWC 1108.  

The submissions of the Standing Counsel that the appointments were made against the provisions of the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, namely, that previous permission was required from the State Government to fill up the appointment in a primary school is patently erroneous. Since the institution is a minority institution, the provisions regarding appointment is government by Section '16FF' of the Intermediate Education Act, which does not provide such restriction for obtaining previous

.5.

permission from the State Government. The appointment in a minority institution is governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act read with Chapter II Regulation 17 of the Regulations framed under the said Act. The District Inspector of Schools can only refuse to accord  approval to the appointment on the ground that the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications. Further, the Act provides that previous permission was required to be obtained from the District Inspector of Schools which in the present case was granted by the Inspector vide order dated 10.7.2006.

The submission  of the learned Standing Counsel that the advertisement contemplated that preference would be given to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit and Hindi subjects, and that, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner No.1, who did not graduate from these subjects, and therefore, his appointment could not be approved is patently erroneous, inasmuch as the petitioner No.1 has the requisite qualifications to teach the students. The Selection Committee had the prerogative to give preference to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit as well as  Hindi. No finding has been given by the Inspector to the effect that there were other candidates who had Sanskrit and Hindi as a subject in B.A., and could also teach those subjects. Further the District Inspector of Schools has no where given the finding that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass orders afresh  for the grant of the approval to the appointment of the petitioners within one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

Dated: May _____2006

SFH

      Reserved

Writ petition No.62331 of 2005

Smt. Anjana Kumar and another.......................................Petitioners

Versus.

State of U.P. and others....................................................Respondents.

..........

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Two posts of Assistant Teachers fell vacant in Christian Girls High School, Shahjahanpur which is a minority institution. The Management, sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur  to fill up the posts, which was granted by the inspector by an order dated 10.7.2003. In pursuance thereof, an advertisement was issued in two newspapers, namely,  ' Amar Ujala and the 'Times of India'. The Selection Committee recommended the petitioners' name for being appointed as Assistant Teachers on 29.5.2004.

The Committee of Management by a letter dated 14.6.2004 forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for  necessary approval. Since no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management, after waiting for more than four months, issued the appointment letters dated 8.11.2004 in favour of the petitioners and, informed the Inspector by its letter dated 17.11.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter,  and eventually, by the impugned order dated 7.9.2005, refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher.

Heard Shri V.K.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The Inspector has refused to accord the approval to the appointments of the petitioners on the ground that the appointment was made by the Committee of Management prior to seeking approval

.2.

from the Inspector and that the appointments were contrary to the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, which provided that the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section was required to be made only after taking permission from the State Government. Further, the  Inspector held that as per the advertisement,  preference was be given to a candidate who had the qualifications to teach Hindi and Sanskrit subjects, whereas the  petitioner No.1 had English, Economics and Social Science as subjects in his  graduation degree.

The appointments of teachers in a minority institution are governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act readwith Regulation 20 of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the said Act. Section 16 FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921 reads as under:-

"16-FF.Savings as to minority institutions(1)Notwithstanding anything in sub-section(4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause(1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management:  

Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall-

(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution, be    an expert selected by the Committee of management from a    panel of experts prepared by the Director;

( b) in the case of appointment of a teacher , be the Head of the     Institution concerned.

(2)The procedure to be allowed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as maybe prescribed.

(3)No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless-

.3.

(a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education ; and

(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.

(4)The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible.

(5)Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case maybe, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section, the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of a teacher.

(6)Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub- section (5) shall be final."

Clause 4 of Section 16-FF clearly indicates that the authority cannot withhold the approval for the selection made where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and was otherwise eligible.

The procedure for holding the selection is contemplated under Regulation 17 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and these regulations cannot override the sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. In Karunesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ Petition No.35525 of 2004, decided on 27.5.2005, it has been held that

.4.

Regulation 20 of Chapter II are only by way of guidelines to be followed for the benefit of the Selection Committee and cannot override the provisions of sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the Act. Consequently, a mere irregularity in the procedure would not make the appointment illegal unless the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications.

 The finding that the appointment was made by the Management prior to the approval granted by the Inspector, and therefore, such appointments were illegal is patently misconceived. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was forwarded by the Committee of Management on 14.6.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter for more than one year and did nothing   in the matter. The appointment letters were issued by the Management after more than 4 months from the date of forwarding the papers to the Inspector, and  therefore, sufficient time was given to the Inspector to take a decision. The Management is not expected to wait  indefinitely for a decision to be taken by the Inspector. Consequently, no irregularity was committed by the Committee of Management in issuing the appointment letters where the Inspector failed to pass orders within a reasonable period. In any case, an appointment letter can be issued by the Management in anticipation of the approval to be granted by the District Inspector of Schools as held in Smt. Ranjana Agarwal vs. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 1994 AWC 1108.  

The submissions of the Standing Counsel that the appointments were made against the provisions of the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, namely, that previous permission was required from the State Government to fill up the appointment in a primary school is patently erroneous. Since the institution is a minority institution, the provisions regarding appointment is government by Section '16FF' of the Intermediate Education Act, which does not provide such restriction for obtaining previous

.5.

permission from the State Government. The appointment in a minority institution is governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act read with Chapter II Regulation 17 of the Regulations framed under the said Act. The District Inspector of Schools can only refuse to accord  approval to the appointment on the ground that the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications. Further, the Act provides that previous permission was required to be obtained from the District Inspector of Schools which in the present case was granted by the Inspector vide order dated 10.7.2006.

The submission  of the learned Standing Counsel that the advertisement contemplated that preference would be given to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit and Hindi subjects, and that, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner No.1, who did not graduate from these subjects, and therefore, his appointment could not be approved is patently erroneous, inasmuch as the petitioner No.1 has the requisite qualifications to teach the students. The Selection Committee had the prerogative to give preference to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit as well as  Hindi. No finding has been given by the Inspector to the effect that there were other candidates who had Sanskrit and Hindi as a subject in B.A., and could also teach those subjects. Further the District Inspector of Schools has no where given the finding that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass orders afresh  for the grant of the approval to the appointment of the petitioners within one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

Dated: May _____2006

SFH

      Reserved

Writ petition No.62331 of 2005

Smt. Anjana Kumar and another.......................................Petitioners

Versus.

State of U.P. and others....................................................Respondents.

..........

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Two posts of Assistant Teachers fell vacant in Christian Girls High School, Shahjahanpur which is a minority institution. The Management, sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur  to fill up the posts, which was granted by the inspector by an order dated 10.7.2003. In pursuance thereof, an advertisement was issued in two newspapers, namely,  ' Amar Ujala and the 'Times of India'. The Selection Committee recommended the petitioners' name for being appointed as Assistant Teachers on 29.5.2004.

The Committee of Management by a letter dated 14.6.2004 forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for  necessary approval. Since no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management, after waiting for more than four months, issued the appointment letters dated 8.11.2004 in favour of the petitioners and, informed the Inspector by its letter dated 17.11.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter,  and eventually, by the impugned order dated 7.9.2005, refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher.

Heard Shri V.K.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The Inspector has refused to accord the approval to the appointments of the petitioners on the ground that the appointment was made by the Committee of Management prior to seeking approval

.2.

from the Inspector and that the appointments were contrary to the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, which provided that the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section was required to be made only after taking permission from the State Government. Further, the  Inspector held that as per the advertisement,  preference was be given to a candidate who had the qualifications to teach Hindi and Sanskrit subjects, whereas the  petitioner No.1 had English, Economics and Social Science as subjects in his  graduation degree.

The appointments of teachers in a minority institution are governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act readwith Regulation 20 of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the said Act. Section 16 FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921 reads as under:-

"16-FF.Savings as to minority institutions(1)Notwithstanding anything in sub-section(4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause(1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management:  

Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall-

(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution, be    an expert selected by the Committee of management from a    panel of experts prepared by the Director;

( b) in the case of appointment of a teacher , be the Head of the     Institution concerned.

(2)The procedure to be allowed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as maybe prescribed.

(3)No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless-

.3.

(a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education ; and

(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.

(4)The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible.

(5)Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case maybe, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section, the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of a teacher.

(6)Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub- section (5) shall be final."

Clause 4 of Section 16-FF clearly indicates that the authority cannot withhold the approval for the selection made where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and was otherwise eligible.

The procedure for holding the selection is contemplated under Regulation 17 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and these regulations cannot override the sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. In Karunesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ Petition No.35525 of 2004, decided on 27.5.2005, it has been held that

.4.

Regulation 20 of Chapter II are only by way of guidelines to be followed for the benefit of the Selection Committee and cannot override the provisions of sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the Act. Consequently, a mere irregularity in the procedure would not make the appointment illegal unless the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications.

 The finding that the appointment was made by the Management prior to the approval granted by the Inspector, and therefore, such appointments were illegal is patently misconceived. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was forwarded by the Committee of Management on 14.6.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter for more than one year and did nothing   in the matter. The appointment letters were issued by the Management after more than 4 months from the date of forwarding the papers to the Inspector, and  therefore, sufficient time was given to the Inspector to take a decision. The Management is not expected to wait  indefinitely for a decision to be taken by the Inspector. Consequently, no irregularity was committed by the Committee of Management in issuing the appointment letters where the Inspector failed to pass orders within a reasonable period. In any case, an appointment letter can be issued by the Management in anticipation of the approval to be granted by the District Inspector of Schools as held in Smt. Ranjana Agarwal vs. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 1994 AWC 1108.  

The submissions of the Standing Counsel that the appointments were made against the provisions of the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, namely, that previous permission was required from the State Government to fill up the appointment in a primary school is patently erroneous. Since the institution is a minority institution, the provisions regarding appointment is government by Section '16FF' of the Intermediate Education Act, which does not provide such restriction for obtaining previous

.5.

permission from the State Government. The appointment in a minority institution is governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act read with Chapter II Regulation 17 of the Regulations framed under the said Act. The District Inspector of Schools can only refuse to accord  approval to the appointment on the ground that the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications. Further, the Act provides that previous permission was required to be obtained from the District Inspector of Schools which in the present case was granted by the Inspector vide order dated 10.7.2006.

The submission  of the learned Standing Counsel that the advertisement contemplated that preference would be given to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit and Hindi subjects, and that, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner No.1, who did not graduate from these subjects, and therefore, his appointment could not be approved is patently erroneous, inasmuch as the petitioner No.1 has the requisite qualifications to teach the students. The Selection Committee had the prerogative to give preference to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit as well as  Hindi. No finding has been given by the Inspector to the effect that there were other candidates who had Sanskrit and Hindi as a subject in B.A., and could also teach those subjects. Further the District Inspector of Schools has no where given the finding that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass orders afresh  for the grant of the approval to the appointment of the petitioners within one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

Dated: May _____2006

SFH

      Reserved

Writ petition No.62331 of 2005

Smt. Anjana Kumar and another.......................................Petitioners

Versus.

State of U.P. and others....................................................Respondents.

..........

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Two posts of Assistant Teachers fell vacant in Christian Girls High School, Shahjahanpur which is a minority institution. The Management, sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur  to fill up the posts, which was granted by the inspector by an order dated 10.7.2003. In pursuance thereof, an advertisement was issued in two newspapers, namely,  ' Amar Ujala and the 'Times of India'. The Selection Committee recommended the petitioners' name for being appointed as Assistant Teachers on 29.5.2004.

The Committee of Management by a letter dated 14.6.2004 forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for  necessary approval. Since no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management, after waiting for more than four months, issued the appointment letters dated 8.11.2004 in favour of the petitioners and, informed the Inspector by its letter dated 17.11.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter,  and eventually, by the impugned order dated 7.9.2005, refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher.

Heard Shri V.K.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The Inspector has refused to accord the approval to the appointments of the petitioners on the ground that the appointment was made by the Committee of Management prior to seeking approval

.2.

from the Inspector and that the appointments were contrary to the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, which provided that the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section was required to be made only after taking permission from the State Government. Further, the  Inspector held that as per the advertisement,  preference was be given to a candidate who had the qualifications to teach Hindi and Sanskrit subjects, whereas the  petitioner No.1 had English, Economics and Social Science as subjects in his  graduation degree.

The appointments of teachers in a minority institution are governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act readwith Regulation 20 of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the said Act. Section 16 FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921 reads as under:-

"16-FF.Savings as to minority institutions(1)Notwithstanding anything in sub-section(4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause(1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management:  

Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall-

(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution, be    an expert selected by the Committee of management from a    panel of experts prepared by the Director;

( b) in the case of appointment of a teacher , be the Head of the     Institution concerned.

(2)The procedure to be allowed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as maybe prescribed.

(3)No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless-

.3.

(a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education ; and

(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.

(4)The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible.

(5)Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case maybe, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section, the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of a teacher.

(6)Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub- section (5) shall be final."

Clause 4 of Section 16-FF clearly indicates that the authority cannot withhold the approval for the selection made where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and was otherwise eligible.

The procedure for holding the selection is contemplated under Regulation 17 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and these regulations cannot override the sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. In Karunesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ Petition No.35525 of 2004, decided on 27.5.2005, it has been held that

.4.

Regulation 20 of Chapter II are only by way of guidelines to be followed for the benefit of the Selection Committee and cannot override the provisions of sub clause (4) of Section 16FF of the Act. Consequently, a mere irregularity in the procedure would not make the appointment illegal unless the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications.

 The finding that the appointment was made by the Management prior to the approval granted by the Inspector, and therefore, such appointments were illegal is patently misconceived. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was forwarded by the Committee of Management on 14.6.2004. The District Inspector of Schools sat over the matter for more than one year and did nothing   in the matter. The appointment letters were issued by the Management after more than 4 months from the date of forwarding the papers to the Inspector, and  therefore, sufficient time was given to the Inspector to take a decision. The Management is not expected to wait  indefinitely for a decision to be taken by the Inspector. Consequently, no irregularity was committed by the Committee of Management in issuing the appointment letters where the Inspector failed to pass orders within a reasonable period. In any case, an appointment letter can be issued by the Management in anticipation of the approval to be granted by the District Inspector of Schools as held in Smt. Ranjana Agarwal vs. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 1994 AWC 1108.  

The submissions of the Standing Counsel that the appointments were made against the provisions of the Government Orders dated 24.7.2001 and 19.4.2003, namely, that previous permission was required from the State Government to fill up the appointment in a primary school is patently erroneous. Since the institution is a minority institution, the provisions regarding appointment is government by Section '16FF' of the Intermediate Education Act, which does not provide such restriction for obtaining previous

.5.

permission from the State Government. The appointment in a minority institution is governed by the provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act read with Chapter II Regulation 17 of the Regulations framed under the said Act. The District Inspector of Schools can only refuse to accord  approval to the appointment on the ground that the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications. Further, the Act provides that previous permission was required to be obtained from the District Inspector of Schools which in the present case was granted by the Inspector vide order dated 10.7.2006.

The submission  of the learned Standing Counsel that the advertisement contemplated that preference would be given to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit and Hindi subjects, and that, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner No.1, who did not graduate from these subjects, and therefore, his appointment could not be approved is patently erroneous, inasmuch as the petitioner No.1 has the requisite qualifications to teach the students. The Selection Committee had the prerogative to give preference to a candidate who could teach Sanskrit as well as  Hindi. No finding has been given by the Inspector to the effect that there were other candidates who had Sanskrit and Hindi as a subject in B.A., and could also teach those subjects. Further the District Inspector of Schools has no where given the finding that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass orders afresh  for the grant of the approval to the appointment of the petitioners within one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

Dated: May _____2006

SFH


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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