Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C/M Dav Inter College And Another v. The State Of U.P. Thru' Its Secretary And Others - WRIT - A No. 35055 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14119 (17 August 2007)


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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.   35055 of  2007

Committee of Management & another  ................................    Petitioners


State of Uttar Pradesh & others   ...............................          Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioners.  Sri Alok Dwivedi  has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 6.  Learned standing counsel appears for respondents No. 1 to 4.  Issue notice to respondent no. 5.

By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 20.7.2007 by which the District Inspector of Schools has directed the  Committee of Management  to permit the teachers to sign the attendance register and work.   The order further states that in view of the disobedience of the departmental orders, recommendation shall be sent for taking action against the petitioners under the  Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees ) Act, 1971 .  Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order has already been passed by the State Government on 24.4.2006 by which the State Government has directed the  education authorities to absorb thirty seven teachers who are claimed to be surplus in the Institution by the Committee of Management.  The counsel for the petitioners contended that instead of taking any action as per order dated 24.4.2006, the District Inspector of Schools has issued an order directing that unless the work is allotted to the teachers action will be taken under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees ) Act, 1971.  It is contended that the number of students  having been reduced to 251 there is no work which can be assigned to all  the  69 teachers of the Institution.  Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, submitted that the Committee of Management cannot have any objection in regard to payment  of salary to the teachers and their attendance in the Institution till they are absorbed in any other Institution. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6  submitted that the a writ petition has been filed being writ petition No. 41966 of 2006 by Mahendra Singh Yadav ( respondent no. 6 in the present writ petition ) and other teachers challenging the order dated 24.4.2006 of the State Government and subsequent letter dated 7.6.2006 of the Director of Education in which writ petition a writ of mandamus  has  been sought restraining the  respondents from interfering in the working of the petitioners.  Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the number of students are not 251 but there are more than  400 students.  He submits that the teachers are entitled  to come to the Institution, mark their attendance and also to teach since there is no order directing  their absorption in any other Institution till date, he further submits that the Management has intention of closing the entire institution and utilise the properties.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The order impugned in the writ petition dated 20th July, 2007 has been issued referring to the order of the State Government dated 24.4.2006 which is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition No. 41966 of 2006 in which case no interim order has yet been granted by this Court.  The fact that the State Government has already directed  for absorption of thirty seven teachers prima facie supports the contention of the petitioners that there are no sufficient periods which can be allocated to all the sixty nine teachers working in the Institution.  The direction of the District Inspector of Schools to the Committee of Management to allow all teachers teaching may not be practically  possible in view of the facts brought on the record.  However, the District Inspector of Schools has rightly  directed that the teachers has to be permitted to mark their attendance in the Institution and due to not marking of the attendance the difficulty may arise in payment of their salary.  It is also relevant to note that the District Inspector of Schools has issued letter dated 13.7.2007 asking the Committee of Management  to give certain details for compliance of the order dated 24.4.2006 of the State Government and according to said letter proceedings are in progress.  

In view of the facts of the present case and the dispute between the parties it is appropriate that this writ petition be also heard along with writ petition No. 41966 of 2006.  Considering the facts brought on the record the order dated 20.7.2007 only to the extent  which directs that all teachers be allowed teaching as they were earlier doing, deserves to be stayed and is hereby stayed.  It is, however, made clear that the teachers shall mark  their attendance.  However, the Principal of the Institution shall make efforts   to provide necessary periods to teachers as per 'Manak'  prescribed  by the State Government.  It is also made clear  that this order be not interpreted in any manner  authorising the petitioners  or the State authorities  to deny payment of salary to the teachers till any order for their absorption is passed.  Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that certain proceedings have been initiated against the Committee of Management,  it is not necessary to express any opinion with regard to any other proceedings which is not subject matter of the writ petition.

Let  a counter affidavit be filed within three weeks.

List  thereafter along with writ petition No. 41966 of 2006.




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.