Allahabad High Court
Kartar Singh vs D.I.O.S. Hamirpur And 4 Ors. on 22 October, 2019
Author: Suneet Kumar
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52400 of 2016 Petitioner :- Kartar Singh Respondent :- D.I.O.S. Hamirpur And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijes Kumar Singh,Sanjay Singh Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
1. Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. 167898 of 2017 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Impleadment application is allowed.
Necessary impleadment to be carried out within a week.
2. Order on Memo of Petition.
Heard Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and Shri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel appearing for the six respondent and Shri Ram Autar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent in Writ - A No. 46800 of 2016. On the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.
The record of Writ-A No. 46800 of 2016 was summoned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein.
The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition, briefly stated, is that Sri Swami Vivekanand Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Shivpuri, Maudaha, District, Hamirpur1,is duly recognized by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act, 2000. The State Government vide order dated 7 February 2014, had taken the Institution in grant-in-aid, communicated by the third respondent-Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Allahabad, vide order dated 29 September 2015, whereby, one post of Headmaster and three post of Assistant Teacher for payment of salary was sanctioned. Two post of Assistant Teacher for Sanskrit subject and one post of Assistant Teacher for Modern subject was approved. It is not being disputed by the respective counsels that qualification for appointment of teachers for Sanskrit and Modern subject is distinct and different. The teachers working in the Institution were required to be paid salary from the State exchequer with effect from 11 August 2015 as mandated and sanctioned by the third respondent vide communication dated 29 September 2015. The third respondent vide order dated 25 January 2016, upon the Institution being brought on aid of the State, passed an order approving following teachers, who were found eligible for payment of salary.
Ø0la0 f'k{kd dk uke inuke tUefrfFk orZeku in ij fu;qfDr dh frfFk 1 Jh lquhy dqekj f=ikBh iz/kkuk/;kid 01-08-1982 27-07-2002 2 Jh ujsUnz dqekj iVsfj;k lgk;d v/;kid ¼laLd`r½ 20-11-1967 10-07-2003 3 Jh ';ke th frokjh lgk;d v/;kid ¼laLd`r½ 02-07-1971 10-08-2006 4 Jh djrkj flag lgk;d v/;kid ¼vk/kqfud½ 04-06-1981 15-07-2008 The order of the third respondent dated 25 January 2016, was subjected to challenge by the fifth respondent/Committee of Management of the Institution in a petition being Writ-A No. 15806 of 2016, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 7 April 2016, directing the third respondent to decide the matter after hearing the parties.
The operative portion of the order reads thus:
"This writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3-Director/Additional Director of Education, Madhyamik, Headquarter, Allahabad to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 19.3.2016 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
While passing the order, the respondent no. 3 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the respondent no. 6-Kartar Singh as well as Shyam Ji Tiwari and the petitioner.
The impugned order dated 25.1.2016 shall be subject to any final order which may be passed by the respondent no. 3 on the petitioner's representation dated 19.3.2016.
Alongwith certified copy of this order the petitioner shall provide a copy of the representation dated 19.3.2016 to the respondent no. 3.
It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit."
It is relevant to point out that the name of sixth respondent, viz. Shri Sushil Kumar Tripathi (petitioner of Writ - A No. 46800 of 2016) working as Assistant Teacher, Sanskrit was omitted and was not heard while carrying out the directions of the Court. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the third respondent after hearing the Manager of the Committee of Management, the petitioner and the District Inspector of Schools, held that the order dated 25 January 2016, passed by the Director is lawful and just order, needs no further clarification. It is noted in the order that Shri Shyam Ji Tiwari, Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) and Shri Sushil Kumar Tripathi, Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit)/sixth respondent both having been appointed on the same date, since Shri Shyam Ji Tiwari is senior in age, therefore, is eligible for payment of salary as against the sixth respondent.
Learned counsel for the sixth respondent, on specific query, does not dispute that Shri Shyam Ji Tiwari is older to sixth respondent in age. Insofar with regard to the petitioner, it is noted in the stand of the District Inspector of Schools before the third respondent that name of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher working in the Institution came to be approved vide order dated 31 March 2012. The representative of the Committee of Management, though, had taken a stand that petitioner was earlier working in another institution, but has not disputed the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools to the petitioner on 31 March 2012, as teacher working in the Institution teaching Modern subject. Learned counsel for the Committee of Management submits that the Management has not assailed the order, in particular, the findings insofar it relates to the petitioner.
Petitioner by the instant petition seeks a direction to the first respondent-District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur, to release and pay salary of the petitioner and other approved Teachers/Headmaster with effect from 11 August 2015, duly approved by the third respondent vide order dated 25 January 2016, affirmed pursuant to the direction of this Court by the third respondent vide order dated 1 September 2016.
Learned counsel for the fifth respondent/Committee of Management has no objection and on specific query, states that the fifth respondent has not assailed the order dated 1 September 2016, before any forum. Insofar the fifth respondent is concerned, the order has attained finality.
Learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that the salary of the petitioner and other teachers may not be released pending decision in Writ-A No. 46800 of 2016 (Sushil Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. & others) instituted by the sixth respondent. The reliefs claimed by the sixth respondent reads thus:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the naturte of certiorari quashing the part of impugned order dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) and 01.09.2016 (Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition) passed by the Director of Education (Madhyamik), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, including the name of Sri Kartar Singh, respondent no. 7 in the list of the teachers of the institution and the order of payment of his salary;
ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent authorities to include the name of the petitioner in the list of teachers of the institution and remove the name of respondent no. 7 from the list of teachers of the institution. Further be pleaded to direct them to pay the regular salary of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit).
On specific query, learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that the academic qualification of the sixth respondent is for Sanskrit subject, whereas, the qualification of the petitioner is M.A. B.Ed. for Modern subject. In the circumstances, relief claimed in the aforesaid writ petition is purely academic insofar it relates to the petitioner. Relief, even if, granted in the petition filed by the sixth respondent, would be of no avail and assistance to the sixth respondent for the reason that he cannot be appointed as Assistant Teacher in Modern subject. On having been confronted, learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that he may be permitted to suitably amend the writ petition and raise challenge to the appointment of his counter part, Shri Shyam Ji Tiwari, Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit).
Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition stands allowed by passing the following orders:
i) third respondent is directed to release and pay salary, arrears of salary to the petitioner and other approved Teachers/Headmaster w.e.f. 11 August 2015 within two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, failing which, petitioner and other approved teachers shall be entitled to interest @ 6.5% per annum on the entire sum from the due date;
ii) petitioner and other Teachers/Headmaster by order dated 1 September 2016 shall be entitled to salary on month to month basis.
Order Date :- 22.10.2019 Mukesh Kr.