Allahabad High Court
Arjun Singh Rathor vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 16 November, 2019
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No.16 Writ-A No. 14836 of 2016 Arjun Singh Rathor Vs. State of U.P. and others ****** Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Avnish Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
2. Notices were issued to respondent no.6. Office report dated 7.5.2016 indicates that neither acknowledgment nor unserved notice has been returned back. In view of Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the High Court Rules, service on respondent no.6 is deemed to be sufficient.
3. Present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 27.2.2016 issued from the office of Joint Director of Eduction, XII Region, Moradabad as well as order dated 29.2.2016 issued by respondent no.3 and order dated 16.3.2016 issued by respondent no.5.
4. Facts in brief are that there is an institution in the name of Jain Inter College, Rampur, which is a duly recognized and non-government aided minority institution upto Intermediate level and is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1921" and "Act of 1971")
5. The said institution was established and administered by Jain minority community. According to the petitioner, one Jafar Abbas Naqvi, permanent Assistant Teacher for Science/Mathematics retired from service on 23.6.2013, thereby causing a substantive vacancy. The management informed about the said vacancy to District Inspector of Schools, with a request for according permission to fill up the post. On 12.2.2015 the District Inspector of Schools granted permission and directed that appointment be made in pursuance of Act of 1921. Thereafter the College management published an advertisement in daily newspaper Dainik Jagran on 14.6.2015 and Times of India on 13.6.2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates. The said advertisement is part of record as Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition.
6. As, petitioner was having requisite qualification, he applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade for Science/Mathematics. On 28.1.2016, petitioner was informed to participate in an interview scheduled for 12.2.2016. It appears, that prior to the date of interview some complaints were received in the office of respondent no.3 on 3.2.2016, 8.2.2016 and 9.2.2016.
7. Petitioner participated in the interview and was selected by the Selection Committee and was issued an appointment order on 17.2.2016. In pursuance thereto he joined on 19.2.2016. As the selection was of a teacher, thus in view of sub section (4) of Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921 it was forwarded to the office of respondent no.3 for approval on 16.2.2016. Respondent no.3 instead of granting approval as envisaged under the relevant provision, referred the matter for consideration to Regional Level Committee.
8. On 27.2.2016 an order was issued from the office of Joint Director of Education, Moradabad Region, Moradabad considering the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee and held that power of according approval for appointment of a teacher in L.T. Grade vested in District Inspector of School as such the matter was relegated to him for passing necessary orders.
9. Pursuant to the said order respondent no.3, on 29.2.2016, disapproved selection of the petitioner. The College Management issued a consequential order cancelling the appointment of petitioner on 16.3.2016. Thus, the orders passed by the Joint Director of Education, District Inspector of Schools and the Management are under challenge.
10. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel submitted that institution in question is a minority institution and appointments are made in pursuance of Section 16-FF of Act of 1921. He submitted that once the selection of a teacher is made by Selection Committee constituted under the aforesaid provision, such a proposal is sent for approval to the District Inspector of Schools, who under sub section (4) of Section 16-FF either grants or disapprove the approval of selection so made, and the Regional Level Committee nor the Joint Director of Education has any role to play.
11. Coming to the merits of the case, he pointed out that orders impugned are against provisions of the Act, as well as against Regulations 10(g) and 17(g) of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. According to him, the Selection Committee had made selection on the basis of total quality point marks and marks given to a candidate in interview, as per Regulation 10(g). Chairman of the Selection Committee, after the interview is over, shall prepare two copies of the selected candidates and the list of two candidates in the waiting list and shall forward the same for approval as per Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921.
12. Thus, the District Inspector of Schools, referring the matter to the Regional Level Committee was against the provision of sub section (4) of Section 16-FF and the order of Joint Director of Education as well as respondent no.3 that the Selection Committee has not followed the procedure while awarding the quality point marks, are incorrect.
13. As far as the complaints made against selected candidates, he submitted that these complaints were neither forwarded to the College nor any opportunity was given to ascertain the fact and take the version of other side, and simply on basis of unconfirmed complaint, respondent no.3 has denied approval to validly selected candidates.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the management submitted that it was after the permission obtained from respondent no.3 that advertisement was made in two newspapers having wide circulation providing for qualification of candidates to be selected. It was also stated that the Selection Committee proceeded in a fair manner and followed the provisions of law in selecting the candidates.
15. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for State submitted that three complaints were received prior to date of interview and candidates named in the complaint have been selected by Selection Committee, which establishes beyond doubt that complaint was correct.
16. As, to the question of grant of approval by the District Inspector of Schools, as contemplated under sub section (4) of Section 16-FF, learned standing counsel did not dispute the said fact. He, however, maintained that Joint Director of Education has only given his opinion on the basis of papers sent by Regional Level Committee and it was ultimately the District Inspector of Schools, who has to pass the order.
17. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
18. It is not in dispute that there stood a vacancy of an Assistant Teacher for Science/Mathematics in institution in question. An advertisement was made in two daily newspapers having wide circulation, i.e., Dainik Jagran and Times of India on 14.6.2015 and 13.6.2015 after respondent no.3 had accorded permission to the institution for said appointment. From perusal of the advertisement, it is clear, that requisite qualification, required for an Assistant Teacher, was as per norms of State Government. Thus, the finding recorded in the order issued by the office of Joint Director of Education that no qualification was prescribed in the advertisement, is factually incorrect.
19. The second objection so raised in the order impugned relating to compliant received in office of respondent no.3, on which Selection was earlier stopped, but on 28.1.2016, it was directed to complete the same in accordance with law, but the management instead of publishing the advertisement again in newspaper proceeded with the earlier advertisement. However, no material has been brought on record by the authority to show that process was to begin afresh. The institution, thus rightly proceeded to hold the selection on basis as applications received earlier and interviewed the candidates and selected list of candidate was sent to the office of respondent no.3 on 16.2.2016 for approval.
20. As far as third objection that complaints were received before the date of interview is of no consequence as these complaints were never forwarded to the institution to bring to their notice ,and once the selection has been made, respondent no.3 cannot disapprove the same on the ground that complaints were pending before the date of interview. Had the respondent no.3 received such complaint it should have acted thereon and should have first asked the institution to explain the charges so made in the complaint.
21. Once the selections were over, the same cannot be disturbed only on the basis of mere unsubstantiated and uncorroborated complaint, which cannot be any ground for not according approval to a validly selected candidate.
22. Lastly, the ground, on which approval has not been granted, is that the Selection Committee has not followed the provisions for awarding quality point marks and the Selection Committee has not recorded any reason for approving or disapproving any candidate.
23. From the reading of Regulations 10(g) and 17(g) of the Act of 1921, it is clear, that the Selection Committee would proceed for selection on the basis of total quality point marks and the marks awarded in interview. The total of marks for this purpose shall be arrived at by addition of the quality point marks as obtained by a candidate and average of marks awarded by the members of the Selection Committee.
24. Sub clause (g) of Regulation 17 provides that after selection has been made, the Chairman of Selection Committee shall prepare two copies and forward the same for approval to District Inspector of Schools under Section 16-FF(4) of the Act of 1921 . Thus, the finding recorded by respondent nos.2 and 3 that no procedure was followed in awarding quality point marks, cannot be accepted.
25. As from reading of sub section (4) of Section 16-FF, it is clear, that in case of a teacher of a minority institution selected by Selection Committee, approval is to be considered by the District Inspector of Schools. The action of respondent no.3 by not according approval himself and forwarding papers to the Regional Level Committee, was completely unwarranted for and was against the mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 16-FF.
26. The observations made by the Regional Committee on the basis of which the office of the Joint Director of Education issuing order dated 27.2.2016 is patently illegal and against the provisions of law. Acting on the said order, respondent no.3 passed the consequential order disapproving the selection of the petitioner on 29.2.2016 on vague and unreasonable ground, which cannot be sustained.
27. Argument of Sri Khare has force, as the District Inspector of Schools was bound to decide the matter of approval in view of sub-section (4) of Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921, as the institution in question is a minority institution and reference to the higher authority by respondent no.3 is totally unwarranted.
28. The order passed by respondent no.3 on 29.2.2016, which is a consequential order passed on the recommendations of the orders issued by office of Joint Director of Education on 27.2.2016 is per se illegal and cannot be sustained.
29. In view of the above, I am of the firm opinion, that the orders impugned dated 27.2.2016, 29.2.2016 and 16.3.2016 are unsustainable and are hereby quashed. However, as respondent no.3 has not decided the matter of approval in view of the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921, considering the Regulations 10(g) and 17(g), the matter is remitted back to District Inspector of Schools, respondent no.3 to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
30. Writ petition stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 16.11.2019 AKJ