Allahabad High Court
State Of Up And 2 Others vs Raj Kumari And Another on 23 April, 2025
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61141-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 293 of 2025 Appellant :- State Of Up And 2 Others Respondent :- Raj Kumari And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ankit Gaur,C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
1. This special appeal is by the State challenging an order passed by learned Single Judge, dated 16.5.2024, in Writ-A No. 7559 of 2024 directing payment of salary to the writ petitioner.
2. Bishara Inter College, Bishara, Aligarh is an educational institution imparting teaching upto intermediate level. It is recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the provisions of Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 are also applicable upon it. A substantive vacancy arose in the institution on 4.7.1997. Since no selected candidate was sent by the Board, the management advertised the vacancy and appointed the writ petitioner on 9.5.2005. She claims to be working ever since then. The writ petition has been filed challenging an order contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition dated 5.2.2024. This order came to be passed pursuant to a direction issued in Writ Petition No.21492 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., decided on 4.1.2024. Claim of writ petitioner for regularization has been accorded consideration by the Regional Level Committee. This order records that the Committee of Management had no right to make appointment against any substantive vacancy, inasmuch as the substantive vacancy could be filled only with the appointment made by the Board. The provision of appointing teachers on ad hoc basis was also discontinued on account of subsequent amendments in the applicable statute. The second removal of difficulties order, which permitted ad hoc appointments to be made by the Committee of Management was also rescinded on 25.1.1999. The committee has noted that there existed no provision in the applicable statute whereunder the claim for regularization of the respondent petitioner could be considered. It is for this reason that the claim for regularization has been rejected. It is this order, which was under challenge in the writ. Learned Single Judge by the order impugned in appeal has allowed the respondent petitioner to continue in the institution and to be paid salary till a regularly selected candidate from the Commission joins.
3. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State argues that the appointment offered to respondent Raj Kumari is de hors the rule, inasmuch as neither the Committee of Management had any right to make appointment against a substantive vacancy nor such appointment could have been approved. It is contended that rejection of claim for regularization is based on correct interpretation of applicable provision, and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to have interfered in the matter.
4. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi appearing for the writ petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the order of learned Single Judge can be defended based upon the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.8300 of 2016, decided on 7.12.2021. Reliance is also placed upon the initial orders passed by the Supreme Court on 19.9.2019, as also the final order passed in such matter on 26.8.2020, to submit that the continuance of ad hoc appointees would have to be protected under the orders of the Supreme Court, and therefore, the interference made by learned Single Judge merits no interference.
5. So far as the legality of the appointment offered to respondent petitioner is concerned, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi concedes that the power of appointment with the Committee of Management by virtue of second removal of difficulties order has seized to exist w.e.f. 21.9.1999, yet the Committee of Management could appoint the writ petitioner under Section 16-E (11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Reliance is also placed upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2015 (7) ADJ 179, to submit that an appointment under Section 16-E(11) would be available to be made by the Committee of Management.
6. We have heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Ankit Gaur, Sri Amit Verma and Sri Ashish Mohan Srivastava for the State and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and have perused the material on record.
7. In order to examine the issue, we may note that the institution concerned is recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The State with an intent to regulate appointment of teachers in such institutions and for other ancillary purposes enacted the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982. Section 16 of the Act of 1982 reads as under:-
"Section 16. Appointment to be made only on the recommendation of the Board (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder but [subject to the provisions of 17Sections 12, 18, 21-B, 21-C, 21-D, [21-E, 21-F, 21-G, 33, 33-A, 33-B, 33-C, 33-D, 33-F and 33-G"], every appointment of a teacher, shall on or after the date of the commencement of the Utter Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment Act, 2001 be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Board").
Provided that in respect of retrenched employees, the provisions of Section 16-EE of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall mutatis mutandis apply.
Provide further that the appointment of a teacher by transfer from one Institution to another, may be made in accordance with the regulations made under Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
[Provided also that the dependent, of a teacher or other employee of an Institution dying in harness, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 may be appointed as teacher in Trained Graduate's Grade in accordance with the regulations made under sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the said Act] (2) Any appointment made in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be void."
8. The mandate of Section 16(2) of the Act of 1982 is that any appointment made in contravention of Act would be void. The State earlier enacted two removal of difficulties order, popularly known as first removal of difficulties order and second removal of difficulties order. So far as the first removal of difficulties order of 1981 is concerned, the procedure prohibited making of appointment against substantive vacancy by the Committee of Management. The procedure contemplated that the vacancy would have to be intimated by the Inspector and appointment was to be made only after the vacancy was advertised by the Inspector. By a subsequent amendment this power has been given to Joint Director of Education. Admittedly no power was given to the Committee of Management to make an appointment against the substantive vacancy under the first removal of difficulties order. The second removal of difficulties order permitted the Committee of Management to make ad hoc appointment against such short term vacancy. This provision was the subject matter of challenge in Kumari Radha Raizada & Ors. Vs. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College & Ors., 1994 All. L.J. 1077, wherein the Larger Bench held that ad hoc appointment on such short term vacancy will also be made after the vacancy is advertised in the manner stipulated in the first removal of difficulties order, 1981. The only provision which permitted the Committee of Management to make appointment under the Act of 1982 was in the form of second removal of difficulties order, which also was discontinued w.e.f. 21.5.1999. After 21.5.1999 the Committee of Management has no power to make even ad hoc appointment.
9. The only exigency in which such power is given to the Committee of Management is Section 16-E(11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which reads as under:-
"16-E. Procedure for selection of teachers and heads of institutions (11) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, appointments in the case of a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or by death, termination or otherwise of an incumbent occurring during an educational sessions, may be made by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to the Selection Committee in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided that no appointment made under this sub section shall, in any case, continue beyond the end of the educational session during which such appointment was made."
10. The aforesaid provision only permits unforeseen vacancies to be filed only for that academic session. This provision does not permit any appointment to be made beyond the academic session. The position in law, in this regard, is well settled. In such circumstances, the Committee of Management has no jurisdiction to make any appointment of teacher either on substantive post or in ad hoc capacity and the only appointment, which could be made, could continue only against the unforeseen vacancy during the currency of the academic session. Beyond it the Committee of Management has no power to make any appointment.
11. We may further observe that exigency created on account of non-making of appointment in the educational institution has to be viewed separately. Where the appointments are not being made by the Commission or the institution is not able to function due to non-availability of teachers, it would always be open for the concerned Committee of Management to approach this Court for necessary direction to be issued to the Commission or to the State. Merely because Commission has not made recruitment or the posts have remained unfilled, it would not give any justification for the Committee of Management to make appointments on its own and such appointees cannot approach this Court for a direction to the State Authorities to release salary to them.
12. We may note that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Abhishek Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. through Secy. Secondary Education, Lko and others, passed in Writ Petition No.655(S/S) of 2014, decided on 17.12.2015, had taken note of such aspects and clarified by law. The Division Bench of this Court in Abhishek Tripathi (supra) had the occasion to go through the scheme of the Act. The judgment of the Division Bench in Abhishek Tripathi (supra) arose out of a similar case wherein learned Single Judge of the Lucknow Bench noticed the peculiar situation adversely impacted the cause of education in the State due to non-appointment of teachers and made observations that the Committee of Management be allowed to make appointments by referring to Section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921. It was this judgment of learned Single Judge which fell for consideration before the Division Bench in Abhishek Tripathi (supra). The conclusion drawn by the Division Bench in Abhishek Tripathi (supra) reads as under:-
"For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the view of the learned Single Judge in Sanjay Singh's case (supra) cannot be upheld as laying down the correct position in law. The view of the learned Single Judge shall stand, accordingly, overruled. The judgment in Pradeep Kumar (supra) is upheld subject to the principles which, we have enunciated in this judgment.
The second issue which has been referred for decision before the Division Bench is the scope of Section 16-E (11) when read in the context of Sections 16, 22, 32 and 33-E of the Act of 1982. We have already dealt with the interpretation of these provisions in the course of the judgment.
The reference to the Division Bench shall stand answered in the aforesaid terms. The record of these proceedings shall now be remitted back to the learned Single Judge, according to roster, for disposal in the light of the questions answered."
13. The Division Bench specially disapproved the course suggested in Sanjay Singh's case, and therefore the view taken by learned Single Judge permitting the Committee of Management to make appointment was specifically overruled.
14. It is this judgment of the Division Bench in Abhishek Tripathi (supra) which landed before the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra). Two orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) is heavily relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, and therefore both these orders dated 19.9.2019 and 26.8.2020 are reproduced hereinafter:-
"19.9.2019:
Delay condoned.
Applications for exemption from filing O.T., exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment permission to file additional documents are allowed.
In view of the submission of learned counsel for the parties what prima facie emerges is that the dispute is really one, where some functional solution has to be found, in view of the allegations of the management of the institutions and the ad hoc teachers appointed, who claim that they have remained ad hoc for years together.
We are told that very few vacancies have been filled in regular posts leaving no option to the institutions but to appoint teachers on ad hoc basis. Normally such ad hoc appointments are made till the end of the academic year but whenever regularization has been sought, those requests had been kept pending for years together.
To appreciate the controversy as mentioned aforesaid, we call upon the respondent-State to file an appropriate chart indicating the current position of vacancies; as to how many regular appointments have been made from time to time; number of requests received for regularization of ad hoc appointment and when and what action has been taken in respect thereof. Since the claimants are seeking regularization from the year 1992 onwards, such data be made available from that date year-wise which would also indicate the existing vacancies as in 1992.
We have impressed upon the State that nature of matter is such, rather than taking an adversarial view, some solution has to be found administratively, specially keeping mind the judicial observations relating to the tardiness of the process in the past. At request six weeks' time is granted for the afore-mentioned purpose.
Liberty is granted to the appellants to file copies of the pleadings.
The applicants are permitted to intervene in the matter. Applications for intervention/impleadment are disposed of.
Application for stay is disposed of in terms of the orders already passed.
No orders are required on I.A. No.134713/2018.
All pending applications are also disposed of.
List on 06.11.2019 as part-heard"
"26/08/2020:
1. The present dispute is a reflection of the mess in the education system where starting from the primary level to the highest level adhocism seems to prevail in the appointment of teachers and lecturers in turn having consequences for the students who need to benefit from the best education process. That has not been so.
2. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the impugned judgment (Writ Petition No.655 of 2014 Abhishek Tripathi vs. State ofU.P. through Secy.Secondary Education, Lko.& Ors. decided on 17th December, 2015) has been rendered to bring an end to the adhocism which was prevailing. The impugned judgment recognizes the mess which is created to which all are contributory but ultimately deemed it proper to decline relief.
3. We have been hearing this matter from time to time to find the solution. We may say at the inception that we are not in disagreement with what has been set out in the impugned judgment but then this Court has the benefit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties and we are taking recourse to this to deal with the mess which is before us i.e. a complete adhocism in the working of the education system whereby TGTs and lecturers have been working for years and decades without a regularization. We do find that everyone is to blame for this scenario as what was an adhoc arrangement never fructified in the prope regularization or by holding examination in which recruitment could take place. If the recruitments did take place, that was periodic in terms of examination held after long period of time.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length earlier and even today to find a solution to the problem. Our attention has also been drawn to the last additional affidavit filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and what emerges is that the State proposes to hold a competitive examination for recruitment of 15000 TGTs and lecturers both (if there are more existing vacancies reported as per rules, the Commission should take care to advertise even for those vacancies). Insofar as the parties before us are concerned, whether as appellants/petitioners or as interventionist, on verification it was found that there are 659 persons before this Court and out of them information regarding 112 persons could not be traced out in absence of details. The details are available only for 547 adhoc teachers (in view of appellants disputing, this is subject to further verification) being 84 lecturers and 463 TGT grade teachers as set out in paragraph 11 of this affidavit.
5. We did debate the issue whether a separate examination should be held for such persons or whether they should participate in the prospective examination process. Normally the difficulty arises on account of the age bar but i.e. undisputedly not a factor in the present case as everybody will be permitted to appear. At times separate examinations have been held in different situations but in the present case we are not concerned with persons who are working at a trade and have been away from the academics since the very nature of job of teaching envisages a continued academic pursuit and improving your skills in teaching.
6. A concern has been expressed by learned counsel for the appellants and applicants that there may be persons who may have rendered long period of service as adhoc and if they really participate in the examination and are even successful, they may not get benefit of the past service, specially retirement benefits, as some of them may be near the age of retirement than the fresh candidates.
7. It is in the conspectus of all the aforesaid circumstances that we consider appropriate to issue the following directions in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:
(a) All the petitioners/appellants and applicants before us and for that matter all persons eligible under the advertisement will be permitted to appear for one single examination.
(b) Such of the persons who are successful, would have to go through a process of interview insofar as the post of lecturers is concerned, as we are informed that the post of TGTs the interviews have been dispensed with.
(c) We are inclined to give some weightage to the persons who have worked as TGT and lecturers depending on the period of service rendered. It is respondent No.3 Commission which will have to tweak this aspect and work out giving some weightage to both TGT and lecturers depending on the period of service rendered. In the case of TGTs, such weightage will have to form a part of the total marks while in case of the lecturers such weightage can be given in the process of interview.
(d) The advertisement to be issued should contain the terms of these directions issued by us today.
(e) We make it clear that the decision as aforesaid will be final of the Commission and no further litigation will be entertained in respect thereof.
(f) Insofar as the verification of past service is concerned, the concerned teachers/lecturers would give the particulars and details to the Commission for obtaining such weightage and that aspect will be verified by the Commission in consultation with the State Government as we are told that it is the State Government which would have the wherewithal to do the needful. Needless to say that aspect will also be final without any further litigation being entertained in that behalf.
(g) In view of the weightage given, for the same the examination process can be completed.
(h) The other aspect is that apart from the weightage, the period which has been verified as having been spent in teaching as adhoc, would be counted for purposes of retiral benefits of the TGTs and Lecturers.
8. On having considered and on having issued the aforesaid directions, we also feel it is necessary to direct that we are not faced with such a situation in future. We would thus like to direct the State and the Commission to lay down a schedule for periodically holding examinations so that it creates employment opportunities and also the students are benefitted. We would require the Commission to not only take into consideration the existing but also future vacancies reported as per rules for purposes of holding such examinations in future. This should bestrictly followed. The learned Advocate General states that this aspect is being taken care of.
9. In view of the petitioners/appellants in their own case having made the ground on the basis of Section 16-E(sub-section 11) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1971 that where teachers have been working for period against substantive vacancies temporarily, there is a provision to give benefits to them, we consider appropriate that the benefits of past service would be rendered only to such of the persons who have been appointed temporarily in accordance with the provisions of this Section. We expect the State to be fair in this matter in recognizing the various nature of vacancies which may have arisen.
10. We have also considered the prayer made in IA No.48618 of 2020 in SLP(Civil)Nos.19561-19562 of 2019. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this aspect and have taken cognizance of the fact that there may be teachers/lecturers who are working and not paid for almost two years. The second concern is that till this examination process is completed, a prayer is made on behalf of the petitioners/ appellants and the applicants that they should be permitted to continue.
11. On having examined the issue, we feel it will be appropriate to direct that the teachers/lecturers who are employed at present the TGTs and lecturers would continue to be so employed till the aforesaid process is completed and to the extent the financial benefits are given by the State Government to the institutions,against appointments made in compliance with Section 16-E (sub-section 11) of the Act, the same will also be given to provide succour to the TGT/lecturers.
12. We end with the hope that we will never be faced with the aforesaid situation again and the State Government and the Commission will also make every endeavour to ensure that the order is complied in its true intent and spirit and specially the aspect of holding examinations for the future taking into consideration all current and future vacancies reported as per rules is followed in times to come. We need not emphasize that education in a very important role performed by a State apart from the area of medical assistance to citizens and thus it is necessary that the full benefit is extended to the students which can only take place if the full strength of teachers is available at the requisite time. This in turn requires compliance with the aforesaid directions for the future.
13. Since there is always hope, we hope for a better future.
14. The aforesaid exercise by the Commission in consultation with the State Government should be completed well in time to ensure that at least in the session commencing in July, 2021 all teachers up to date are in place.
15. All the appeals and special leave petitions are disposed of in terms aforesaid.
16. All pending applications also stand disposed of."
15. Learned State Counsel submits that apart from the above two orders, the Supreme Court later passed another order on 7.12.2021 in Misc. Application No. 818 of 2021, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"We have perused the affidavit filed by the State Government. In terms of para 8, 1446 ad hoc teachers applied under Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) category and 9 ad hoc teachers applied under the Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) category and claimed weightage on the ground of service as an ad hoc teacher. The Board directed the District Inspectors of Schools to verify the details of these candidates who had claimed weightage as ad hoc teachers. Out of these, on verification, it was found that 150 applicants were not even working as ad hoc teachers and they had claimed weightage by giving false information. That, in our view, put an end to their story.
Out of the 1296 TGTs., 126 applicants have been found appointed ad hoc following procedure as prescribed, under Section 16E (11) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short, "the Act") and accordingly weightage was given to these ad hoc teachers.
The aforesaid having been verified, one of the pleas raised by the applicants is that at least these people should be released their salary. We feel this is an appropriate direction to be passed for release of arrears of salary for these 126 persons, naturally if not already paid.
It is next set out in the affidavit that 9 applicants had applied under the PGT category, but it was found that without following the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Section, they were so recruited.
Insofar as the 126 candidates are concerned, due to low performance in the written examination, 123 candidates could not be selected in the final merit list for TGT category and 3 candidates have been selected in the final merit list. It has thereafter been set out that under the TGT category, 16 candidates have been selected even without giving weightage marks and similarly 3 ad hoc graduate teachers have also been selected in PGT category without giving weightage marks.
On query from the Court, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Selection Board states that if weightage had been given, 15 candidates would have made it in TGT and 3 would have made it in PGT. This is premised on the basis that if such weightage was given to all the 1296 candidates.
Thus, the only issue remains for consideration of these 18 persons appointed who are stated to had not been strictly appointed in terms of Section 16 (E) 11 of the said Act.
In view of the large number of vacancies in recruitment and the passage of time for which they have worked, to put a quietus to the issue, we consider appropriate that these 18 people may also be given appointment. We do so by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to the parties. The list of these applicants be published on the web site within a week.
Insofar as the persons who have informed not to have been recruited in compliance of Section 16 (E) 11, that does not take away the obligation of the Institute to pay those people the salary having taken work from them. This is the burden of the Management and we cannot burden the Government.
Application stands disposed of.
The necessary action be taken by the respondent(s) within a maximum period of two months from today.
We make it clear that this puts a quietus to the complete issue and no further proceedings before us or before the High Court are to be entertained."
16. It is undisputed that pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra), two advertisements were issued and appointments pursuant thereto have been made. The primary relief given to such teachers was to be given weightage of marks in the regular recruitment apart from age relaxation. It is admitted that respondent petitioner was not one of the person before the Supreme Court and the observations and directions issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the context of persons before the Supreme Court, does not fall for determination in this case.
17. It is in the above facts and circumstances that the present appeal is placed for consideration before this Court. We have already noticed that after 25.1.1999 no appointment could be made by the Committee of Management even against a short term vacancy. Under the statutory scheme the Committee of Management was otherwise denuded of any jurisdiction to make appointment against a substantive vacancy. The appointment offered to respondent, in such circumstances, has to be treated as appointment made de hors the rule. This is otherwise the position in law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhat Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 62. In Prabhat Kumar Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court clearly recognized that appointment made in contravention to Section 16(2) of the Act of 1982 would be void. Para 10 of the judgment in Prabhat Kumar Sharma (supra) is reproduced hereinafter:-
"10. These principles are unexceptionable. However, the question is whether they get attracted to the facts of this case. It is seen that when intimation was given by the college to the Commission for allotment of the teachers, the Act envisaged that within one year the recommendation would be made by the Commission for appointment; but within two months from the date of the intimation if the allotment of the selected candidates is not made to obviate the difficulty of the Management in imparting education to the students, Section 18 gives power to the Management to make ad hoc appointments. Section 16 is mandatory. Any appointment in violation thereof is void. As seen prior to the Amendment Act of 1982 the First 1981 Order envisages recruitment as per the procedure prescribed in para 5 thereof. It is an in-built procedure to avoid manipulation and nepotism in selection and appointment of the teachers by the Management to any posts in aided institution. It is obvious that when the salary is paid by the State to the Government aided private educational institutions, public interest demands that the teachers' selection must be in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act read with the First 1981 Order. Therefore, the Order is a permanent one but not transient as contended for. The Full Bench of the High Court has elaborately considered the effect of the Order and for cogent and valid reasons it has held that the Order will supplement the power to select and appoint ad hoc teachers as per the procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. The view taken by the Division Bench following the Full Bench decision, therefore, cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, we find no merit in special leave petition."
(emphasis supplied by us)
18. No provision of law is otherwise shown under which the appointment offered by the Committee of Management de hors the rule could be regularized. We may also indicate that since the exigency dealt with under Section 16-E(11) only permits the teachers to be appointed against unforeseen vacancy during the academic session, and no provision of law otherwise exists for them to be regularized, the claim of respondent for regularization could not be considered. Law is settled that regularization in service can be directed only in accordance with the Rules providing for such regularization (see: Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1).
19. In the facts of the case, we find that the claim of respondent for regularization was accorded consideration in accordance with the statutory scheme and the same was rejected. Learned Single Judge has not examined the matter in light of the statutory scheme and no observations have been made as to how such appointment by the Committee of Management could be allowed to continue. In such circumstances, no direction could have been issued to allow the respondent to continue in service or to be paid salary.
20. Special appeal, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Order passed by learned Single Judge dated 16.5.2024 directing the respondent petitioner to continue in service or receive salary is set aside. Our order, however, will not deprive the respondent petitioner from claiming salary from the Committee of Management but in any way the State Authorities cannot be held responsible for such payment of salary. Our order also will not preclude the respondent/petitioner from seeking any benefit of subsequent Government Order, whereunder she may claim appointment or payment on honorarium basis.
Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Anil (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.)