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 Hira Devi Tota Ram Girls Intermediate College v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 23660 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 3658 (29 September 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).



Writ Petition No.23660 of 2004

Committee of Management of Hira Devi Tota Ram Girls  Intermediate College, Moradabad Vs. State of U.P.& others

Connected with

Writ Petition No.27029 of 2004

Indrajeet Singh  Vs. State of U.P.& others


Writ Petition No.39308 of 2005

Committee of Management of Hira Devi Tota Ram Girls Intermediate College,  Moradabad and another Vs. State of U.P.& others  


Hon'ble A.P.Sahi,J.

These three writ petitions arise out of a common cause of action  in the sense that all the three writ petitions pertain to the claim  of Sri Indrajeet Singh, to continue to function as Asstt. clerk in the Institution known as  Hira Devi Tota Ram Girls Intermediate College,   Bahjoi ,district Moradabad, which an Institution recognized and governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

All the three writ petitions have been heard together . Sri Anil Bhushan  has been heard for the petitioner Committee of Management  in writ petition No.23660 of 2004 and Sri Irshad Ali holding  brief of Sri M.A.Qadeer for the respondent no.5 Indrajeet Singh, and learned standing counsel for the rest of the respondents. Sri Khalil Ahmad Ansari has been heard  on behalf of the Principal of the Institution. Sri Irshad Ali has been heard  for Indrajeet Singh as the petitioner in writ petition No.27029 of 2004  and as respondent  in the writ petition No.39308 of 2004.

The post was being claimed by one Late Sri Ramesh Chandra Varshney, whose appointment on the post in question became  subject matter of controversy,  and ultimately reached this court in  writ petition No.16292 of 1988 filed by late Sri Ramesh chandra Varshney  himself . The challenge in the said writ petition was  to the termination of the service of Ramesh Chandra Varshney  by the Administrator  of the College, who was functioning as the Management under section 16 D of the  U.P.Intermediate Education Act, 1921 It was alleged by Ramesh Chandra Varshney,  that his termination was invalid, as it was not preceded by any prior approval  of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools,/  Distt. Inspector of Schools. This court held that the order of termination of Ramesh Chandra Varshney  was in operative, and found him entitled to continue  in service and also payment of salary. A copy of the judgment dated 12.12.2003  has been appended as Annexure XIII  to the writ petition. An important fact which requires to be noted at this juncture is that Ramesh Chandra Varshney had attained  the age of superannuation during the pendency of the said writ petition on 31.7.2002 itself. The writ petition was finally heard, and judgment was reserved by this court on 14.11.2003. The petitioner therein  Ramesh Chandra Varshney  died on 22.11.2003. These facts have not been referred to in the judgment which came to be delivered on 12.12.2003. It appears, that the fact of his death,  after the judgment was reserved could  not be brought  to the notice of this court. However, the death of the petitioner, after the judgment was reserved,  would not make much of a difference, as such a delivery of judgment stands saved, in law, as held by the Apex court in the case of N.P.Thirugnanam  Vs. Dr. R.Jagan Mohan Rao and others ,reported in A.I.R.1996 S.C. 116. The judgment dated 12.12.2003has been neither put to challenge nor is in jeopardy as admitted by the learend counsel for the parties.

Coming to the facts of the appointment of Indrajeet Singh respondent no.5, it is to be noted that the appointment of Indrajeet Singh  vide order dated 25.8.1992 was subject to the decision  of the writ petition of Ramesh Chandra varshney, as is evident from a perusal of Annexure I to the writ petition, which is a letter of appointment issued by the Administrator  of the College. This is further substantiated by the order of the Regional  Inspectress of Girls Schools, contained in Annexure II to the writ petition, which also clearly states that the appointment of Indrajeet Singh is to subsist and shall abide by, according to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the pending writ petition. Thus there is no room for doubt that the appointment  of Indrajeet Singh was dependent on the outcome of the writ petition filed by Ramesh Chandra Varshney .

It is true, that Indrajeet Singh continued to function and receive his salary. He also made a move  to get his services declared permanent and confirmed, and he also succeeded in getting the order from the Distt. Inspector of Schools to this effect. It is these orders, which have been challenged by the petitioner committee of Management through its present Manager Sri  Bhanu Prakash  and  a prayer has been made for quashing the same. Annexure X to the writ petition is the  confirmation order of Indrajeet Singh, which was passed  on the ground, that Indrajeet Singh had already completed  his probationary period  of one year on 27.8.1993. This was followed by another order permitting the said Indrajeet Singh to join the Provident fund scheme and   allocation of G.P.F. account no in his favour. This order has also been challenged by the Committee of Management Subsequently,  orders dated 4.6.2004 and 17.5.2004 were passed by  the Distt. Inspector of  Schools, Moradabad, treating Indrajeet Singh   entitled to continue in the Institution with a further rider  that the parties shall appear before the Distt. Inspector of Schools with their objections in this respect. The Distt. Inspector of Schools  passed an order directing the petitioner committee of Management to permit Indrajeet Singh to continue on the post and submit his salary bills, which has triggered off this litigation

The principal  ground of challenge to the aforesaid orders is founded on the impact of the judgment dated 12.12.2003 in writ petition No. 16292 of 1988 referred to herein above.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,it is evident that the appointment of Indrajeet Singh  was clearly dependent on the outcome  of the writ petition, which was ultimately allowed on 12.12.2003. This writ petition was filed challenging the impugned orders  and this court on 6.7.2004 refused to grant any interim order and issued a direction that Indrajeet Singh - respondent no.5 shall be allowed to continue  in the Institution  and shall also be paid his salary regularly. Against the order dated 6.7.2004  the petitioner Committee of Management  preferred special Appeal  no. 870 of 2004 in which the operation of the interim order dated 6.7.2004 passed in the instant writ petition was stayed until further orders. The said Special appeal is reported to be still pending and the interim order continues to operate.

During the pendency  of this writ petition, the committee of Management  was superseded and an authorised controller was appointed on 23.2.2005 to manage the Institution. The Committee of Management challenged the said order in which an interim order was passed in favour of the Committee  on 15.3.2005 staying the operation  of the order dated 23.2.05 as a result whereof , the committee of Management continued to function. However, taking advantage  of the time gap between the order  dated 23.2.2005 and the interim  order dated 15.3.2005, the Authorised controller  passed an  order dated 11.3.2005 virtually continuing Indrajeet Singh- respondent  and reinstating him in service. The Distt. Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 1.4.2005 in  favour of Indrajeet Singh for his continuance and payment of salary .

Indrajeet Singh had filed  a writ petition no.27029 of 2004  praying for a mandamus  permitting him to discharge his duties  and payment of salary. This court on 4.8.2004 passed an order of status quo with regard to the service of Indrajeet Singh as on the date of the passing of the said interim order. The Committee of Managemnt filed Special Appeal No. 1053 of 2004 against the interim order and the operation of the order was stayed by the said appellate Bench on 26.8.2004. The said Special appeal is pending and interim order continues to operate

Thus from the conspectus of the aforesaid facts, it is evident  that  Indrajeet Singh was prevented from functioning in the Institution in terms of the judgment of this court dated 12.12.2003.

The Committee of Management  has filed the  writ petition No.39308 of 2005 challenging the orders  dated 14.3.2005 and 21.4.2005 referred to herein above , whereby the Authorised controller  and Distt.Inspector of Schools  had passed orders in favour of Indrajeet Singh. This court  vide interim order dated 13.5.2005 kept the said orders in abeyance  and which order still continues to be  in force.

The simple question, therefore, is with regard to the status of Indrajeet Singh as on date. Indrajeet Singh is no longer entitled  to continue due to the direct impact of the judgment dated 12.12.2003, inasmuch as the very letter of appointment and subsequent approval in favour of Indrajeet Singh referred to herein above was dependent on the result of the writ petition, which came to be  decided on 12.12.2003. As a consequence thereof, the post was not available for appointment as the termination of Late Ramesh Chandra Varshney  on the post in question was held to be invalid. Late Sri Ramesh Chandra Varshney , therefore, shall be deemed to be continuing on the post and the same could be filled up only upon his having attained the age of superannuation, which took place on 31.7.2002. Thus, there was no vacancy  available so as to treat the appointment  of Indrajeet Singh as a permanent appointment. His appointment was, therefore, brought to  an end automatically with the judgment of this court dated 12.12.2003. No submissions were advanced  on behalf of Indrajeet Singh, which could persuade this court to take a different or any other view.

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 20.9.2003 and consequential order dated 1.10.2003 as also the orders dated 14.6.20045 and 17.6.2004 are unsustainable in law as they are in the teeth of the judgment of this court dated 12.12.2003 and the said orders are hereby quashed ,

In view of the quashing of the aforesaid orders, the orders dated 11.3.2005 and 21.4.2005  impugned in the writ petition No. 39308 of 2005 also fall through and hereby set aside.  As a consequence of the aforesaid orders, the writ petition no. 27029 of 2004 fails and is hereby dismissed.

The Committee of  Management  shall now be entitled to fill up  the post in accordance with the Rules and in case Indrajeet Singh applies for the said post, he shall also be considered for appointment on the post in question, if the said post is available to be filled up by direct recruitment.

All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

Dt. September       , 2005



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.