Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH NARAIN PANDEY & ANOTHER versus DIRECTOR BASIC EDUCATION & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suresh Narain Pandey & Another v. Director Basic Education & Others - WRIT - A No. 12360 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 2114 (25 August 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.6

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 12360 OF 2002

Suresh Narain Pandey and another

                    Vs.

Director, Basic Education, Allahabad & others

                  __________________  

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners  were appointed as Assistant Teachers w.e.f. 1.7.1980 and 5.2.1981 respectively in the institution known as Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Saraipeeth, Shahipur, Allahabad. At that time this institution was not recognised and a permanent recognition was given by the authorities in the year 1984. Consequently, upon the permanent recognition being granted, the provisions of U.P. Recognised Basic Education Junior High School [Recruitment and Condition ] of Teacher Rules 1978 [ hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1978] became applicable upon the institution. Upon the recognition of the institution, the District Basic Education Officer granted temporary approval of the appointments of the petitioners by an order dated 1.1.1985 and thereafter, permanent approval was granted by an order dated 9.12.1986.

The State Government vide an order dated 31.3.1998 included the institution under the grant in aid list. Based on the said order, the institution  became entitled to receive the salary payable to the teachers working in the institution  from the State Government, but for the reasons best known, the salary payable to the petitioners was not being released by the State Government. The petitioners made a representation that since the institution has been included in the grant in aid list and that their appointments have also been approved by the District Basic Education Officer, they should be paid the salary by the Government. The representation of the petitioners was rejected by an order dated 18.9.2001 holding that the appointment of the petitioners was not made in accordance with the Rules of 1978 and therefore, they were not entitled for the salary from the State Government. Based on this order, the respondents issued another order dated

                                            2.

1.4.2002 and 31.3.2003 [filed as Annexures-10 and 11 to the writ petition ] cancelling the appointments of the petitioners on the ground that their appointments was made in violation of the Rules of 1978. Consequently, the present writ petition.

Admittedly, the District Basic Education Officer had granted approval to the appointment of the petitioners initially on a temporary basis on 1.1.1985 and, thereafter permanent approval was granted on 9.12.1986. Consequently, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to allege after 15 years that the appointments of the petitioners was made in violation of the Rules of 1978, the respondents could not cancel their appointments exparte by the order dated 1.4.2002 and 31.3.2003. Further, the Rules of 1978 were not applicable to the petitioners' appointment, inasmuch as, the said Rules were only applicable to those institutions who were recognised by the State Government. The recognition of the institution was granted by the State Government in the year 1984, whereas the petitioners were appointed in the year 1981. As such, the Rules of 1978 with regard to the appointments of the petitioners was not applicable.

Consequently, the ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioners for the payment of salary by the State Government and their appointments are erroneous and without any justification. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed. The impugned orders dated 18.9.2001 passed by the Regional Assistant Director  of Education [Basic], Allahabad, respondent no.2 as well as the order dated 31.4.2002 and 31.3.2003 passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass consequential orders with regard to the payment of salary to the petitioners from the date when the institution was brought under the grant in aid list.

Dt.25.8.2005

Ak/12360/02


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.