Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA versus DISTT. BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER, SAHARANPUR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Praveen Kumar Sharma v. Distt. Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - A No. 31038 of 1996 [2006] RD-AH 11720 (18 July 2006)

 

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. 27

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.   31038     of    1996

Praveen Kumar Sharma ...........................................         Petitioner

Versus

District Basic Education Officer

& others                  ......................................            Respondents

..................................

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this  writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the  respondents no. 1 and 2 to get the petitioner joined in the Institution  and to issue formal order of approval by the respondent no. 1.  A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to complete all the formalities in respect to appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher.

The petitioner's case in the  writ petition  is that he was selected by the Selection Committee for appointment as Assistant Teacher. On 15th July, 1996 the records of which was communicated to the  Basic Shiksha Adhiakri for approval but the  Basic Shiksha Adhiakri did not approve the appointment .  Complaint was filed before the District Magistrate who called for selection proceedings.  It was stated in the  writ petition that the Management  is taking another interview  for ousting the petitioner from being appointed as Assistant Teacher. It was further stated in the  writ petition that the District Magistrate has called for the report.  It was submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was valid appointment. Reliance was placed on rule 10 (5) (iii) of the  U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers ) Rules,1978  for claiming that the approval shall be deemed since nothing was communicated within one month from the receipt of the papers which papers were received on 15.7.1996.  

Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted  that the letter of nominee of Basic Shiksha Adhikari   dated 27.7.1996 for the first time  has come on record along with the counter affidavit  in which he stated that all formalities were completed including giving of marks before he reached the venue of interview,   the Expert had not signed the proceedings.  Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that  no decision having been communicated to the petitioner the approval shall be deemed to have taken place in accordance with rule 10 of  the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers ) Rules,1978 .

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

There is no dispute that the papers were submitted  to the  Basic Shiksha Adhiakri seeking approval for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher  in a recognized   Junior High School .  The petitioner claimed to have selected  on 15.7.1996.  The proceedings of selection including  the interview  sheet has been filed as Annexure -3B  to the  writ petition from whcih it appears that the said sheet has been signed only by the Principal and the Manager of the Institution. The report of the selection/interview does not contain the signatures of the nominee of Basic Shiksha Adhikari  who was one of the member of  Selection Committee.   In the counter affidavit filed by the Principal the letter of the  Basic Shiksha Adhiakri dated 27.7.1996 has been brought on record.  The  Basic Shiksha Adhiakri after receiving the letter dated 15.7.1996 immediately returned back the papers in original  raising seven objections as mentioned in the letter.  The very first objection in the letter  was that on the select list signatures of the nominee of the  Basic Shiksha Adhiakri who was member of the Selection Committee are not there  hence the entire selection is erroneous.  Certain other objections were also raised.  

From the papers of the selection which has been filed along with the  writ petition it is amply clear that the proceedings of selection including the interview/ selection sheet  does not contain the signatures of nominee of the  Basic Shiksha Adhiakri.  The objection to the above fact  that the selection has been done without there being  participation  and signatures of the nominee was raised at the very first instance in his letter dated 27.7.1996.  The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner  that for the first time the petitioner came to  know about such objection is incorrect.

Now coming to the second submission of the counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to say that the letter of the  Basic Shiksha Adhiakri dated 27.7.1996 was issued within a period of less than two weeks from the date of receipt of the papers of selection.  Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the  U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers ) Rules,1978   are not attracted . The relevant rule 10(5)(iii) is quoted below :-

       " 10 (5) (iii) If the District Basic Education officer  does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee."

In the present case  the District Basic Education officer  has returned the original papers  raising various objections  with regard to selection which objections were expressly mentioned in the letter dated 27.7.1996 and the original papers were returned back for getting the selection made after participation of the nominee.   The selection of the petitioner cannot be deemed  to have been approved.  The District Basic Education officer had raised  the said objections within one month from the date of receipt of the letter.  No case is made out for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join in the institution as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade.   There being no participation of the Expert /nominee of the District Basic Shiksha Adhiakri , the whole selection was erroneous and has rightly not been approved by the District Basic Shiksha Adhiakri. No case has been made out for granting any relief to the petitioner in this  writ petition.

The  writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

D/-18.7.2006

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.