Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M SRI GAUTAM JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL KHALILPUR versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. EDUCATION AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/m Sri Gautam Junior High School Khalilpur v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Education And Others - WRIT - A No. 47705 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1581 (7 July 2005)

 

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

Court No.52.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47705  of   2005.

Committee of Management  Sri Gautam Junior

High School , Titra Khalilpur Jaluan ........... Petitioner

Versus

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

:::::::::::

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is accepted on record.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.  Both the parties have agreed that this writ petition be finally disposed of at this stage.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.4.2005 Annexure-12 to the writ petition passed by the District Basic Education Officer.

Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are;  the  Gautam Junior High School Titra, Khalilpur, District Jaluan  is a recognised Junior High School.  The post of Head Master fell vacant on 30.6.2002 after retirement of Sri Mahadeo Prasad Verma.  After retirement  an advertisement was issued for the post of head Master on 15.11.2002 with the approval of the District Basic Education Officer . In pursuance of the said advertisement only three persons applied. Petitioner made  a request to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari  for appointing nominee in the Selection Committee in accordance with the U.P. Recognised Junior High School (Conditions of Service of Teachers  and other Employees) Act, 1978 .  Basic Shiksha Adhikari has nominated one Assistant Basic Education Officer as member of the Selection Committee but the selection committee could not met and the said nominee was transferred.  Subsequently management wrote several letters for appointing another nominee and ultimately came to this Court by filing the writ petition No. 50049 of 2004 which writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the Management to approach the District Basic Education Officer who may consider the request of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner made an application praying for giving a nominee in the Selection Committee which representation has been rejected by the order impugned in this writ petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

The Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the impugned order dated 28.4.2005 has mainly given two reasons for rejecting the representation. The first reason given is that the signature of the Manager  Sri Gopi Nath were attested on 5.6.2004 and after 5.6.2004 the Management ought to have issued fresh advertisement but the Management is representing  for giving the nominee in the Selection Committee on the basis of advertisement dated 15.11.2002.  It has further been stated by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that in accordance with the Government order dated 20.1.2003 the post which fell vacant by retirement,  after sending the proposal to the State Government  and  alongwith prior approval of the State Government  can be permitted to be to be filled up. In so far as the first reason given by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the management ought to have issued fresh advertisement,  there appears substance.  Earlier advertisement was issued on 15.11.2002,  about two and half years have elapsed from the said advertisement.  It has also come on record that only three applicants came forward . In above view of the matter no exception can be taken to the view of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the management ought to have issued fresh advertisement for selection on the post of Head Master. It goes without saying that after issue of fresh advertisement the District Basic Education Officer has to nominate member in the selection committee for conducting the selection.  

Coming to the second reason given by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the copy of the Government order dated 20.1.2003 has been brought on record as Annexure S.A.1.  The said Government order is with regard to post creation. Although paragraph 2 of the said Government order do state that the post falling vacant  due to retirement should be permitted to be filled up according to number of students, sanctioned post and annual result   and other relevant factors.  In the present case the  post was already permitted to be filled up by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide his letter dated 25.10.2002 as stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition.  With regard to post of head Master the question of number of students, the number of sanctioned post is not relevant.   More so, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari already permitted filling of the post.  It is not open to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to say that the prior approval of the State Government  be obtained.  The order of the District Basic Education Officer dated 28.4.2005 in so far as it rejects the representation on the ground that the prior approval is required by the State Government for filling up the post of Head Master cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.

In the result the writ petition is partly allowed. The committee of management may issue fresh advertisement for the post of  head Master in which it will be open for the management to also consider the candidature of those candidates who had earlier applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15.11.2002 .  The District Basic Education Officer shall nominate member  in the selection committee in accordance with the relevant rules within a period of two months from the date of submitting the advertisement in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.  The selection proceedings may be expeditiously completed in accordance with the rules.

With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is partly allowed.

D/-7.7.2005

SCS


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.