Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAWAB SINGH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. EDUCATION DEPTT. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nawab Singh & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Education Deptt. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 34908 of 2002 [2003] RD-AH 133 (6 May 2003)

 

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

Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 34908  of 2002

Nawab Singh and another                  .............Petitioners

         

Versus

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

     

Hon'ble V. K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner No. 1 claims himself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management of Adersh Janta Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Vidhipur, Sahnaul, District Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the institution) and petitioner No. 2 claims himself to be the Head Master of the aforesaid institution.  Both these incumbents have approached this court for issuing a writ in the nature mandamus commanding the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Agra Region, Agra to issue necessary orders for payment of salary to the teaching an non-teaching staff of the institution and further to release the grant-in-aid, which is being withheld.

Brief background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that Adersh Janta Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Vidhipur, Sahnaul, District Aligarh, is a duly recognised institution with effect from 21.5.1984 as per provisions contained in the U.P. Basic Education Act. In order to bring the institution within the scope of the provisions of U.P. Junior High Schools ( Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978, the State Government invited applications from recognised Junior High Schools in case they were interested in getting the State aid, and the cut of date which was prescribed therein was 30.6.1984 i.e. all the institutions who had been recognised only upto 30.6.1984 were eligible for being considered for being included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. The petitioner institution, claiming itself to be recognised on 21.5.1984, applied for inclusion of its name in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government, and after all the formalities were completed, the State Government on 21.2.2001 published a list of 29 institutions out of which 19 were boys  institutions and 10 were girls institutions. The name of the petitioners' institution was shown at serial no. 7 and the date of permanent recognition was mentioned as 21.5.1984. These institutions were entitled to get grant-in-aid with retrospective effect i.e. 1.1.2001. Thereafter necessary communication was sent in this regard from the Office of the District basic Education Officer, Aligarh, and by means of the said communication, it was directed that copy of the documents as mentioned in the aforesaid letter be produced before the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Agra Region, Agra. The documents, which were required to be produced were as follows:

1.Copy of permanent recognition

2.Copy of renewal of registration

3.Copy of approval of teaching and non-teaching staff

4.Copy of post creation

5.Copy of the letter for additional Section

6.Staff statement

It appears that the documents, which were asked for, were not supplied, and the District Basic Education Officer once again on 18.8.2001 informed the petitioner No. 1 that various objections have been raised by the Additional Director of Education (Basic) on 3.7.2001 and further that in the relevant file letter in regard to permanent recognition was not available. It appears that the Secretary of the Institution thereafter submitted reply on 20.8.2001. Further, it appears that letter was written by the Director of Education addressed to the State Government that the date of permanent recognition was 21.5.1984. Thereafter another letter dated 4.2.2002 was written by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad informing and intimating the date of permanent recognition as 21.5.1984. Special Secretary to the State Government, thereafter, by means of letter dated 12.4.2002 asked the Director of Education (Basic) to check the entire records in regard to date of recognition and thereafter ensure payment of salary to teaching and non-teaching staff, and the State Government may also be informed accordingly. Thereafter the Director of Education (Basic) on 19.6.2002 wrote a letter condemning the conduct of the Additional Director of Education (Basic), and further he was asked to do the needful in the matter. In spite of these letters being written, payment of salary was not ensured to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution. Complaining inaction on the part of the Regional Assistant Director of Education  (Basic), the present writ petition has been filed.

On presentation of the writ petition on 26.8.2002 following order was passed by this Court:

" Sri P.K. Shrama, learned Advocate, represents respondent No. 4. Learned Chief Standing Counsel represents respondents 1 to 3.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners institution was recognised on 21.5.1984 and thereafter by order dated 22.2.2001 it was brought in the list of grant-in-aid. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter various orders were also issued directing respondent No. 3 to release grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioners institution, but nothing has been done so far.

In view of the aforesaid submission and the materials  in this respect as has been brought on record it is hereby directed that the learned authority will ensure release of grant-in-aid to the petitioners institution within a period of one month from the date of receipt of  certified copy of this order or he will file show cause counter affidavit before this court within that period.

List this petition in the first week of October, 2002."

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the stand taken in it is to the effect  that the date of recognition of the petitioners' institution is 21.5.1985,and further in the past in the Manager's Return, which had been submitted,   Regional Committee had described the date of recognition as 21.5.1985. The further plea is that pursuant to the letter dated 18.9.2001 till date the Manager of the institution has not produced the relevant document in regard to the date of permanent recognition from which it can be verified that the date of permanent recognition is 21.5.1984. The further plea, which has been taken, is that the matter has already been referred to the State Government for necessary action, and till date  no orders have been communicated by the State Government, and as such it would be inappropriate to release  the salary.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, along with which certain documents have been filed in the shape of R. A.-1, R.A.-2 and R.A.-3, which are in connection with the list of the recognised institutions circulated  by the respective District Basic Education Officers dated 5.9.1991, 21.3.1992 and 18.6.1996 respectively, and in all the three documents, the date of permanent recognition  of the petitioners institution has been mentioned as 21.5.1984. Further Annexure R.A. - 4 has been filed, by means of which it has been mentioned that  for correction of the date of recognition application had been moved way back in January, 1985.

After exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits, this court passed the following order on 20.2.2003:

" Heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

Learned Standing counsel has produced the original record as directed by this court's order dated 4th  February, 2003, learned Standing Counsel has shown the original M.R. submitted in the year 1996 in which there  is no mention of the letter dated 21sat May, 1984 rather there is an endorsement by the authorities that the recognition date is 21st May, 1985.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be granted 10 days' time to bring the copy of the manager's Return on the record. Time prayed for is allowed.

List the writ petition thereafter."

Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this court, a supplementary affidavit has been filed, by means of which the letter dated 21.5.1985 has been sought to be disputed and various other documents have been sought to be filed in order to substantiated the factum of date of recognition as 21.5.1984, and further in regard to the fact that manipulation has been done by respondent No. 3. To this supplementary affidavit supplementary counter affidavit has been filed, along with which the letter dated 21.5.1985 has been sought to be appended, wherein the date of permanent recognition has been mentioned as 1.7.1984, and further letter dated 10.12.2002 has been appended, by means of which a request has been made for removing the name of the petitioners institution from the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. To this supplementary counter affidavit  supplementary  rejoinder affidavit has been filed, along with which two annexures have been filed as Annexures S.R.A.-1 and S.R.A.-2, by means of which genuineness of the letter dated 21.5.1985 has been sought to be dispensed with.

After exchange of the pleadings, again when the matter was taken up on 17.4.2003, directives were given for production of original records, and the matter was taken on 22.4.2003. on the aforesaid date relevant extract of the relevant dispatch registers of the year 1984 and 1985 were sought to be produced before the Court. The dispatch register for the year 1984 reflects that no letter of recognition has been dispatched in favour of the petitioners institution. Similarly, as per case of the respondents, the date of recognition is 21.5.1985, but the reference of the aforementioned letter does not find place in the  in the aforesaid dispatch register. In this view of the fact, as far as the dispatch registers are concerned, they do not lead to any inference, whatsoever.

Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has pleaded with great vehemence that once the entire exercise has been carried out and the institution in question has been included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government, then it is not at all open to the Additional Director of Education (Basic) to sit over the decision of the State Government. Here in the present case on account of extraneous consideration salary of  teaching an  non-teaching staff of the petitioners institution is being withheld.

Sri M.P.S. Niranjan, learned  Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the date of permanent recognition goes to the root of the matter inasmuch as  in case the date of permanent recognition is 21.5.1984, then in that event, the petitioners institution would be entitled to all benefits, and in case the date of recognition comes beyond 30.6.1984, then the petitioners institution would be out of list. As the disputed question of facts is involved in the present writ petition, this court should refrain itself from adjudicating the disputed question of facts and leave it open to the authority concerned who are seized with the matter.

From the pleadings of the parties, it emerges that considering the date of permanent recognition as 21..5.1984, the State Government in exercise of its power vested under Section 10 of the 1978 Act has decided to include the petitioners institution in the grant-in-aid list maintained by the State Government, and after the aforementioned exercise was over, before releasing the amount in question in favour of teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution, the Additional Director of Education (Basic) was asked to verify the facts and in pursuance of this, the Additional Director of Education (Basic) has been disputing the actual date of recognition of the petitioners institution. From the side of the petitioners various documents have been produced in the shape of SRA-1, SRA-2 and SRA-3, which are letters maintained by the District Basic Education Officer in regard to the recognition of the institutions, wherein the date of recognition of the petitioners institution has been mentioned as 21.5.1984, and apart from this certificate issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, which shows the date of recognition of the petitioners institution as 21.5.1984. From the side of the respondents the letter dated 21.5.1985 is being relied upon, genuineness of which is disputed  by various documents of the Department itself. Apart from this, by means of annexure C.A. -2, Manager's Return submitted by Nawab Singh, petitioner No. 1, the date of permanent recognition has been shown as 1.7.1984, and it has been corrected as 21.5.1985. Thus, various contradictory documents are available on record, and as far as this  Court is concerned, disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India. It is for the authorities concerned to hear and adjudicate this question as to what is the correct date of permanent recognition of the petitioners institution.

By means of letter dated 10.12.2002, the matter has already been referred to the Special Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh for deleting the name of the petitioners' institution from the grant-in-aid list, and till date no decision has been taken by the State Government. The order passed by the State Government including the petitioners' institution in the grant-in-aid list, still holds the field, and till the aforementioned order is varied/ modified/cancelled, the respondents are duty bound to ensure payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the petitioners' institution subject to fulfillment of other terms and conditions. The teaching and non-teaching staff of the petitioners' institution have been made to suffer an irreparable loss on account of inaction on the part of the respondents in not dealing with the matter in all expedition and the file is rolling with snails pace. After filing of the writ petition,  no attempt or endeavour has been made by the State Government to take final decision in the matter.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is hereby directed that within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, the Secretary of the Education Department will take final decision by means of reasoned order in regard to actual date of permanent recognition of the petitioners' institution after giving opportunity to petitioners and in case the date of recognition of the petitioner's' institution  is found as 21.5.1984  then within a further period of one month approved teaching and non-teaching staff of the petitioners' institution shall be ensured payment of salary as well as arrears of salary.

The writ petition is disposed of in terms   of the above observations and direction.

06.05.2003

SRY.


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.