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


Teachers Association Through Its President Ved Pprakash v. Director, Samaj Kalyan Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Others - WRIT - A No. - 9784 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 17919 (15 November 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).


Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9784 of 1999

Teachers Association through its president and others


Director, Samaj Kalyan, U.P. Lucknow and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Dispute in present writ petition cropped up when institution in question was to be brought on in grant-in-aid list of the State Government. Petitioners claim to have been validly appointed teachers of Dr. Ambedkar Smrit Pathshala, Purasudi Udiyawan, Azamgargh, and have been continuously working since before the institution started receiving grant-in-aid. Petitioners claim that their names had been left out and name of fake and imposter teachers had been recommended and accepted. This Court on 25.04.2005, seeing the nature of dispute and the fact that various contradictory reports were on record, issued directives to the Director, Samaj Kalyan, U.P. Lucknow to hold an enquiry about the validity of appointment of teachers at the institution himself or through an officer not below the rank of the Additional Director and to submit a positive report. Pursuant thereto, enquiry was got conducted by Additional Director and report was submitted on 03.10.2005, on the basis of which final report dated 08.12.2005 was placed before this Court. This Court was not satisfied with the said report, as the directives issued by this Court were ignored and the enquiry report submitted did not deal with the validity of appointment of petitioners or respondent Nos. 5 to 12, as such Director, Samaj Kalyan, U.P. was directed to file his personal affidavit explaining as to why enquiry was not conducted properly. Thereafter, Director Samaj Kalyan filed his personal affidavit. Said affidavit was also not found to be satisfactory by this Court, as it was completely silent and gave no explanation as to why inquiry was not properly conducted with regard to validity of appointments of teachers. Against the said enquiry objections had been filed by the petitioners. As no reply was filed to the said objections, this Court again on 21.11.2006 asked the Director Samaj Kalyan to appear in person before the Court and explain the following:

"(i) Why the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the terms of the order of this Court dated 25.04.2005?

(ii) why his affidavit gives no reason or any explanation for not holding the inquiry properly; and

(iii) why the reply to the objections has not been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 within time allowed by the Court."

Thereafter, along with Second Supplementary counter affidavit, report dated 05.12.2006 has been appended. At this juncture present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Niraj Tiwari, Advocate, appearing for petitioners, contended with vehemence that Director, Samaj Kalyan, U.P. Lucknow, time and again has not complied with the directives issued by this Court and adjudication which has been done by him, has not been at all done in its correct perspective and record available has not been perused, as such the finding which has been returned is perverse finding and is of no consequence.

Learned Standing Counsel Sri J.K, Tiwari and Sri J.P. Paliwal, on the other hand, contended that valid finding of fact has been returned and no interference is warranted, as the petitioners have not been validly appointed teachers, rather respondent Nos. 5 to 12 have been validly appointed teachers.

After respective arguments have been advanced the factual position which emerges is to the effect that on various occasions this Court directed the Director, Samaj Kalyan, U.P. to get an enquiry conducted into the validity of appointment of teachers and submit a report as to whether petitioners or respondent Nos. 5 to 12 are validly appointed teachers at the institution in question. Enquiry was to be conducted after scrutinising the record available in the office of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. No proper enquiry has been conducted and the respondent authorities have shifted the burden from one table to another. Whatever enquiry was conducted and submitted before this Court, objections were filed to the same, but no reply has been filed to the said objections. Time and again opportunity was afforded to respondent authorities to conduct a proper enquiry and submit positive report. Entire effort of the respondent authorities has been to cover the earlier enquiry report, and not to make positive effort to arrive at truthful conclusion, by proceeding to see as to who was the validly recognized Manager of the Managing committee of the institution. Proceeding for selection and appointment had been made by said validly constituted Managing Committee, through properly constituted Selection Committee, as per the relevant Rules/executive instructions which held the field. Along with the writ petition copy of report dated 11.03.1993 has been appended, wherein petitioners have been shown to have been working and coupled with this, it has also been sought to be contended that in the list furnished, names of teachers have been incorrectly shown, whereas said incumbents were not at all teachers of the institution. The Director, Samaj Kalyan, U.P. was even asked to file his personal affidavit and to appear in person in order to explain the position. Even thereafter the affidavit furnished by him is completely silent on facts in issue i.e. as to who (either petitioners or respondent Nos. 5 to 12) are validly appointed teachers. Unless and until a finding on issue mentioned is returned, the controversy involved in present writ petition cannot be resolved. Consequently, liberty is given to petitioners to file their claim before the Director, Samaj Kalyan, U.P. Lucknow, who shall take into account the papers as submitted by petitioners and shall also call for the record from the institution as well as from the respective offices, and then take appropriate decision on the question as to who (either petitioners or respondent Nos. 5 to 12) are validly appointed teachers. The whole exercise is directed to be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Opportunity of hearing be provided to both the sides.

In terms of above order, writ petition stands disposed of.




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.