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


Savita Rani v. D.I.O.S. Ghaziabad & Another - WRIT - A No. 15703 of 2001 [2005] RD-AH 4359 (18 October 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).


Court No. 27

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  15703 of 2001

Savita Rani                 Vs.        D I O S Ghaziabad and another


Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

Heard Sri I.R. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner was appointed against vacancy created upon retirement of Smt. Krishna Rehlan who retired on 30.6.99. The papers relating to the appointment of the petitioner was forwarded to the DIOS for according approval. The DIOS vide letter dated 8.2.2001 declined to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that according to financial survey conducted in the institution and on the basis of the strength of students only three sanctioned posts remained in the institution and as the petitioner's appointment was in addition to three teachers already working, it was in excess of the sanctioned strength and therefore, could not be accepted. The petitioner has challenged the said order by means of the present writ petition and has further prayed for payment of salary along with arrears. A supplementary affidavit is also filed along with letter of DIOS Ghaziabad dated 18.9.97.  According to it only three posts of teachers are mentioned in the 'others category', in the institution in the primary section.

Counter affidavit has been filed by Asstt. DIOS Ghaziabad. In para 3 similar stand has been taken that there are three sanctioned posts in the primary section of the institution and the appointment of the petitioner has been made without approval of the DIOS and is therefore is illegal. It is further stated in para 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit that there is no such letter of Finance/Account Officer mentioning that there are five posts and secondly that the Manager had continued with four teachers in the institution by concealment of facts and as such in the circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved and has been rightly not accepted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the G.O. dated 20.1.1986 in primary institution attached to Intermediate colleges running classes 1 to 5 would be entitled to one teacher per class and therefore, there should be at least four sanctioned post in the institution. The appointment of the petitioner having been made as fourth teacher she was entitled to payment of salary. He has further contended that under the payment of Salaries Act 1971 the Director Education is the authority empowered to grant approval for the post and therefore, the Director may examine this aspect and pass appropriate orders.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that each class of the primary section would require at least one teacher to attend to the students of each class otherwise the class room would be without supervision of the teacher and therefore, there appears to be some substance in the contention that there should be  at least one teacher for each class.

However, it is for the State Authority to take a decision, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and also the various Government Orders which provide for sanctioning of the posts and entitlement of minimum number of teachers, to ascertain as to whether or not the institution has been correctly accorded sanction of three posts only.

In the circumstances it is  directed that the Director of Education may examine the controversy and take a final decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date  the petitioner submits a detailed representation along with certified copy of  this order.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed off.




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.