Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Sharma vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 31 January, 2020
Author: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1033 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1- Heard Sri Siddharth Khare,learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
2- Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent no. 4 institution came on grant-in-aid list by Government Order dated 2.12.2006 w.e.f. 1.12.2006. The Manager's report with regard to the teaching and non teaching staff said to be working in the respondent no. 4 institution was alleged to be incorrect. For this purpose, several persons filed the representations before the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad Region, Allahabad. The representations were decided by order dated 19.4.2008 passed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad Region, Allahabad after hearing all the parties concerned and a finding was recorded that as per records available, the Manager of the respondent no.4 institution, manipulated the records and illegally included names of certain persons in the Manager's report showing them to be working before the institution came on grant-in-aid list. However, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not challenged the said order dated 19.4.2008 passed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad.
3- It shall not be out of place to mention here that after the aforesaid order dated 19.4.2008 was passed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad, Writ-C No.48300 of 2010 (C/M, Janhitkari Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya , Sujaula and another), was filed, which was disposed of by order dated 13.8.2010, as under:
"The petitioner committee of management alleges that the respondent no.6 to 9 are not qualified to be appointed as Head Master/ Assistant Teacher by a recognized Junior High School. In view of qualification prescribed under Rule 4 of the U.P. Recognized Basic School (Junior High School Recruitment and Condition) Service of Teachers Rule 1978. Hence this petition.
Petitioner's representation in that regard made before respondent no.5, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari Allahabad has not been considered.
In such facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the grievance of the petitioner needs attention of respondent no.5 at the earliest.
Accordingly the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.2 within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. On such a representation being made the respondent no.2 shall call for the records and shall pass a reasoned speaking order preferably within four weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent no. 6 to 9."
4- In compliance to the aforequoted order of this Court dated 13.8.2010, the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Camp Office, Lucknow passed an order dated 19.11.2010, whereby, the representations including the representation of the petitioner were rejected. This order was also not challenged by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him.
5- It appears that belatedly, the petitioner filed Writ-A No.8086 of 2014 (Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 others), whereby, he raised his grievance that financial approval to him is not being granted by the authorities. On his contention and without calling for a counter affidavit, the aforesaid Writ-A8086 of 2014 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 12.2.2014 as under :
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to grant financial approval with regard to appointment of the petitioner as regular Assistant Teacher in Janhitkari Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalay, Sujaula, Handia, Allahabad.
I have heard Sri Pankaj Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.
From the averments, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said Institution on 10.10.1985 and the Institution later on came on grant-in-aid in 2006 but according to the petitioner, till date no financial approval has been given in the matter of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Institution in question.
In view of the nature of the order, which is being passed, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents no.3.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties , this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2. the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad to examine the matter regarding grant of financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the Institution in question at his level after examining the entire records for which purpose he will also give adequate notice and an opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management of the Institution, respondent no.3 and pass an order strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office."
6- Pursuant to the afore-quoted order of this Court dated 12.2.2014, the impugned order dated 17.4.2014 was passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad, which has now been challenged in the present writ petition.
7- From the facts afore-noted, it is clear that the petitioner has allowed the order dated 19.4.2008 and 19.11.2010 both passed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), to have become final. He has also not challenged the impugned order dated 17.4.2014 for about six years and has now filed the present writ petition to challenge it. Copies of the orders of the Assistant Director of Eduction (Basic) dated 19.4.2008 and 19.11.2010 have also not been filed along with the writ petition. It shall not be place to mention that while passing the impugned order dated 17.4.2014, the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad also called upon the the Manager of the respondent no.4 institution, who submitted in writing that the petitioner was not appointed under any selection process and the petitioner is not working in the respondent no.4 institution, since the year 2006.
8- Apart from above, this writ petition is highly belated and hit by principles of latches. The averments made by the petitioner in paragraph Nos. 36 to 40 of the writ petition for delay of about six years, are wholly vague. Nothing has been disclosed in these paragraphs that when the petitioner came in the year 2014 to engage a counsel, when he completed the formalities and what was inadvertence, and who was the counsel and when he became aware that the writ petition was not filed. Thus, there is no explanation for latches of about six years in filing the writ petition. Thus, the writ petition is also hit by latches.
9- For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.4.2014. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.1.2020 Ak/