Supreme Court - Daily Orders
City Montessori School vs State Of U.P. on 7 September, 2016
Bench: Dipak Misra, C. Nagappan
1
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.4 SECTION XI
REVISED
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).27341/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/09/2015
in SA No.333/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for directions and exemption from filing O.T. and
intervention and interim relief and office report)
WITH W.P.(C) No. 700/2015
(With appln.(s) for stay and appln.(s) for amendment of the
petition and appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Office
Report)
W.P.(C) No.340/2016
(With appln.(s) for interim relief and appln.(s) for permission to
file lengthy list of dates and appln.(s) for exemption from filing
O.T. and Office Report)
SLP(C) No.25181/2016
(With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and Interim Relief and
Office Report)
CONMT.PET.(C) No.532/2013 In W.P.(C) No.631/2004
(With appln.(s) for modification of court's order and appln.(s) for
impleadment as party respondent and and appln.(s) for exemption
from filing O.T. and Office Report)
Date : 07/09/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Manish Vaish, Adv.
Mr. R.P. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. R. P. Gupta,Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Manish Vaish, Adv.
Digitally signed by
SANJAY KUMAR
Date: 2016.09.15
10:22:35 IST
Reason: Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. R.P. Gupta, Adv.
Petitioner-in-person
2
For Respondent(s) Mrs. Madhavi Divan, Adv.
Mr. Tadimalla Baskar Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Arun, Adv.
Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. M. R. Shamshad,Adv.
Mr. Rajat Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv. (Not Present)
Mr. Gautam Talukdar,Adv.
Mr. Sravan Kumar, Adv.
For Mr. Amit K. Nain, Adv.
Mr. G.N. Reddy, Adv. (Not Present)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A. No.6 in SLP(C) No.27341/2015 Let this interlocutory application for direction be heard along with the main special leave petition.
W.P.(C) No.700/2015 Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, prays for two weeks' time to file an application to amend the instant writ petition as the petitioners intend to challenge the Government Order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 11.5.2016. Let the matter be listed after four weeks.
3SLP(C) No.25181/2016 Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(C) No.700/2015. In the meantime, pleadings shall be complete. I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2016 and I.A. Nos.5 & 6 of 2016 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.532/2013 in W.P.(Civil) No.631/2004 All these interlocutory applications are basically for impleadment as party respondents in the Contempt Petition and modification of the Court's order dated 13.7.2016. As far as the applications for impleadment are concerned, the prayer for impleadment as party respondents in the Contempt Petition stands allowed.
Cause title be amended accordingly.
We have heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents, Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Telangana and Mr. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Telangana Parents Foundation. None has appeared on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Before we proceed to deal with the prayer, we think it appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the order dated 13.7.2016, which is sought to be modified. It reads as follows :
“At this juncture, Mr. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent, namely Telangana Parents Foundation, has submitted that the teachers in the State have been sent on deputation to work with the members of the State Legislative Assembly and Ministers. 4 Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Telangana, per contra, would contend that the said practice has stopped and the persons who were sent on deputation have been withdrawn. We must state without any kind of hesitation that teachers could not have been sent on deputation to function as Private Secretaries of the members of the Legislative Assembly or Ministers. If anyone is deputed, he must be immediately sent back and an affidavit to that extent be filed by the next date of hearing.” Mr. Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Telangana, submits that the State Government has passed an order on 09.2.2016. We think it appropriate for completeness to reproduce the relevant part of the said order. It reads as follows :-
“In the reference 1st read above, orders were issued to provide Personal Assistant to MLC on deputation basis from the Government Departments upto the Cadre of Senior Assistant, subject to certain conditions mentioned therein.
2. In the reference 3rd read above, Dr. R. Bhoopathi Reddy, MLC, Nizamabad requested that he would intend to take the services of Sri G. Srinivas Reddy, S.A. ZPHS, Vajjapally (Vill) of Gandhari (Mdl), Nazamabad District as his Personal Assistant to work at his Office at Nizamabad w.e.f. 09.1.2016.
3. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.473, G.A.(SR) Dept. Dt.4.7.2007, the appointment of PA's shall be by drafting personnel including Technical personnel up to the cadre of Senior Asst. working in Govt. Depts. including Depts. not under the Dist. Admn. Like Jails Colleges etc., and also from the Local Bodies and State Govt. Public 5 Undertaking/Corpns. However, the power of relaxation of rules regarding to appointment of P.A. to MLCs has been delegated to Chief Secretary to Government, vide G G.O. Rt. No.1384, G.A(SR) Dept., Dt.19.12.2014.
4. After careful examination of the matter, Government hereby appoint Sri G. Srinivas Reddy, S.A., ZPHS, Vajjapally (Vill) of Gandhari (Mdl), Nizamabad District to Dr. R. Bhoopathi Reddy, MLC, Nizamabad w.e.f. 09.1.2016 in relaxation of rules.
5. The Collector & District Magistrate, Nizamabad shall take necessary action in the matter.” Ordinarily, after the said order came into force, the issue of deputation of teachers to function as Private Secretaries to other authorities would have come to an end, but the present applications have been filed by the teachers expressing their plight that they should be allowed to continue till the next academic sessions i.e. till the end of June, 2017.
Ms. Divan, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents, submits that the children of the teachers have been admitted in nearby schools and if the applicants are compelled to go back at this juncture to their parental posts, their family would suffer immensely and such enormous suffering has come to them because they had obeyed the orders passed by the State Government.
Mr. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Telangana Parents Foundation, submits that the teachers are obliged to teach in the school and not to work as Personal Assistants to the other authorities, namely, the members of the State Legislative Assembly and Ministers and when the State Government has realised the 6 mistake and rectified the same, the teachers, if they are granted extension, as prayed for, it will be perpetuating an illegality.
Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, who was appointed as the Chairman of the Committee to verify with regard to the existence of toilets, availability of teachers and other facilities in the schools, in his turn, has drawn our attention to section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for brevity, “the Act”). The said provision reads as follows :-
“27. Prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes. - No teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be.” The language employed by the Parliament in the said provision is absolutely unequivocal and clear.
In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, we are of the convinced opinion that both the States, namely, the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, could not have deputed the teachers as Personal Assistants/Private Secretaries. As stated earlier, after our order, wisdom has dawned on the State of Telangana and accordingly, it has issued the government order cancelling the same.7
We have said that the wisdom has prevailed as there is no contest to the situation. Presently, what is prayed by this batch of teachers is for continuance. They could not have been deputed to the posts in question. Had they been entitled to be deputed, in all possibility, this Court could have been sympathetic towards them. Though they are not at fault, yet we do not intend to issue any direction in violation of law to allow the impleaded respondents to continue upto the end of June, 2017. If we so do, needless to say, there will be express violation of the legislative command and, therefore, we refrain from entertaining the prayer made by the impleaded respondents.
However, as the impleaded parties have to go back to their places and the children are to be readmitted, we command both the States, namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, to see that their children are given mid-term admission in schools so that they will not lose an academic year. We so direct that because we hold that the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are squarely responsible for creating such a situation. We will not allow it to be crept in future, as such an act is totally contrary to law. As far as the impleaded respondents are concerned, they shall stand relieved forthwith from their present posts and the competent authority of the concerned State shall give them posting orders within a week from today. They shall be entitled to join within three weeks thereafter.
With the aforesaid directions, these interlocutory applications stand disposed of.8
As far as other directions are concerned in the matter, the same shall be taken up on 5.10.2016.
CONMT.PET.(C) No.532/2013 In W.P.(C) No.631/2004 After we have disposed of all the interlocutory applications for impleadment as party respondents in the Writ Petition and modification of this Court's order dated 13.7.2016, we had fond hope that the controversy in this regard in all possibility has been put to rest but, a pregnant one, Mr. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Telangana Parents Foundation, would submit that he has obtained certain information which may be quite shocking to the conscience of this Court as there is flagrant violation of the legislative command and all norms. He has filed a list of Professors working as Personal Assistants/Private Secretaries. We reproduce the said list hereinunder :
“List of Professors working as PA/PS
1. Prof. Shivasankar, Telangana University, working as PA to Mr. Swami Goud, MLC and Chairman of Legislative Council.
2. Prof. Bhaskar, Kakatiya University, working as PA/PS to Madhusudana Chari, MLA and Speaker of Telangana Assembly.
3. Prof. Srinivas Reddy, Agriculture University, working as PA/PS to Padma Devendar Reddy, MLA and Dy. Speaker of Telangana Assembly.” A copy of the said list has been handed over to Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the State of Telangana.
We shall address this issue in course of next week. Let the matter be listed on 15.9.2016.
9It is made clear that we have not passed any order today as we desire that Mr. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the State of Telangana shall verify the facts and assist Mr. P. Vishwanath Setty, learned Senior Counsel, who shall, in his turn, address the Court. We are absolutely certain that the concerned State shall take steps in accordance with law and not in deviation thereof. We say so as we think, we may not be required to pass any order issuing a direction. We say no more on this point. All other aspects of the matter shall be addressed on the next date of hearing.
Writ Petition (C) No.340 of 2016 Let the brief of this writ petition be served upon Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitory General for the Union of India, who is present in Court, as also upon Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. List the matter on 5.10.2016.
Registry is directed to show the names of Mr. B. K. Prasad and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, as the counsel for the Union of India, and the State of Uttar Pradesh, respectively, in the cause list.
(Sanjay Kumar-II) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
10
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.4 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).27341/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/09/2015 in SA No.333/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench) CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for directions and exemption from filing O.T. and intervention and interim relief and office report) WITH W.P.(C) No. 700/2015 (With appln.(s) for stay and appln.(s) for amendment of the petition and appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Office Report) W.P.(C) No.340/2016 (With appln.(s) for interim relief and appln.(s) for permission to file lengthy list of dates and appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Office Report) SLP(C) No.25181/2016 (With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and Interim Relief and Office Report) CONMT.PET.(C) No.532/2013 In W.P.(C) No.631/2004 (With appln.(s) for modification of court's order and appln.(s) for impleadment as party respondent and and appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Office Report) Date : 07/09/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Manish Vaish, Adv.
Mr. R.P. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. R. P. Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Manish Vaish, Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. R.P. Gupta, Adv.
Petitioner-in-person 11 For Respondent(s) Mrs. Madhavi Divan, Adv.
Mr. Tadimalla Baskar Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Arun, Adv.
Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. M. R. Shamshad,Adv.
Mr. Rajat Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv. (Not Present) Mr. Gautam Talukdar,Adv.
Mr. Sravan Kumar, Adv.
For Mr. Amit K. Nain, Adv.
Mr. G.N. Reddy, Adv. (Not Present) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. No.6 in SLP(C) No.27341/2015 Let this interlocutory application for direction be heard along with the main special leave petition. W.P.(C) No.700/2015 Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, prays for two weeks' time to file an application to amend the instant writ petition as the petitioners intend to challenge the Government Order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 11.5.2016. Let the matter be listed after four weeks.12
SLP(C) No.25181/2016 Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(C) No.700/2015. In the meantime, pleadings shall be complete. I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2016 and I.A. Nos.5 & 6 of 2016 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.532/2013 in W.P.(Civil) No.631/2004 All these interlocutory applications are basically for impleadment as party respondents in the Writ Petition and modification of the Court's order dated 13.7.2016. As far as the applications for impleadment are concerned, the prayer for impleadment as party respondents in the writ petition stands allowed.
Cause title be amended accordingly.
We have heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents, Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Telangana and Mr. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Telangana Parents Foundation. None has appeared on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Before we proceed to deal with the prayer, we think it appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the order dated 13.7.2016, which is sought to be modified. It reads as follows :
“At this juncture, Mr. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent, namely Telangana Parents Foundation, has submitted that the teachers in the State have been sent on deputation to work with the members of the State Legislative Assembly and Ministers.13
Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Telangana, per contra, would contend that the said practice has stopped and the persons who were sent on deputation have been withdrawn. We must state without any kind of hesitation that teachers could not have been sent on deputation to function as Private Secretaries of the members of the Legislative Assembly or Ministers. If anyone is deputed, he must be immediately sent back and an affidavit to that extent be filed by the next date of hearing.” Mr. Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Telangana, submits that the State Government has passed an order on 09.2.2016. We think it appropriate for completeness to reproduce the relevant part of the said order. It reads as follows :-
“In the reference 1st read above, orders were issued to provide Personal Assistant to MLC on deputation basis from the Government Departments upto the Cadre of Senior Assistant, subject to certain conditions mentioned therein.
2. In the reference 3rd read above, Dr. R. Bhoopathi Reddy, MLC, Nizamabad requested that he would intend to take the services of Sri G. Srinivas Reddy, S.A. ZPHS, Vajjapally (Vill) of Gandhari (Mdl), Nazamabad District as his Personal Assistant to work at his Office at Nizamabad w.e.f. 09.1.2016.
3. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.473, G.A.(SR) Dept. Dt.4.7.2007, the appointment of PA's shall be by drafting personnel including Technical personnel up to the cadre of Senior Asst. working in Govt. Depts. including Depts. not under the Dist. Admn. Like Jails Colleges etc., and also from the Local Bodies and State Govt. Public 14 Undertaking/Corpns. However, the power of relaxation of rules regarding to appointment of P.A. to MLCs has been delegated to Chief Secretary to Government, vide G G.O. Rt. No.1384, G.A(SR) Dept., Dt.19.12.2014.
4. After careful examination of the matter, Government hereby appoint Sri G. Srinivas Reddy, S.A., ZPHS, Vajjapally (Vill) of Gandhari (Mdl), Nizamabad District to Dr. R. Bhoopathi Reddy, MLC, Nizamabad w.e.f. 09.1.2016 in relaxation of rules.
5. The Collector & District Magistrate, Nizamabad shall take necessary action in the matter.” Ordinarily, after the said order came into force, the issue of deputation of teachers to function as Private Secretaries to other authorities would have come to an end, but the present applications have been filed by the teachers expressing their plight that they should be allowed to continue till the next academic sessions i.e. till the end of June, 2017.
Ms. Divan, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents, submits that the children of the teachers have been admitted in nearby schools and if the applicants are compelled to go back at this juncture to their parental posts, their family would suffer immensely and such enormous suffering has come to them because they had obeyed the orders passed by the State Government.
Mr. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Telangana Parents Foundation, submits that the teachers are obliged to teach in the school and not to work as Personal Assistants to the other authorities, namely, the members of the State Legislative Assembly and Ministers and when the State Government has realised the 15 mistake and rectified the same, the teachers, if they are granted extension, as prayed for, it will be perpetuating an illegality.
Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, who was appointed as the Chairman of the Committee to verify with regard to the existence of toilets, availability of teachers and other facilities in the schools, in his turn, has drawn our attention to section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for brevity, “the Act”). The said provision reads as follows :-
“27. Prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes. - No teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be.” The language employed by the Parliament in the said provision is absolutely unequivocal and clear.
In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, we are of the convinced opinion that both the States, namely, the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, could not have deputed the teachers as Personal Assistants/Private Secretaries. As stated earlier, after our order, wisdom has dawned on the State of Telangana and accordingly, it has issued the government order cancelling the same.16
We have said that the wisdom has prevailed as there is no contest to the situation. Presently, what is prayed by this batch of teachers is for continuance. They could not have been deputed to the posts in question. Had they been entitled to be deputed, in all possibility, this Court could have been sympathetic towards them. Though they are not at fault, yet we do not intend to issue any direction in violation of law to allow the impleaded respondents to continue upto the end of June, 2017. If we so do, needless to say, there will be express violation of the legislative command and, therefore, we refrain from entertaining the prayer made by the impleaded respondents.
However, as the impleaded parties have to go back to their places and the children are to be readmitted, we command both the States, namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, to see that their children are given mid-term admission in schools so that they will not lose an academic year. We so direct that because we hold that the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are squarely responsible for creating such a situation. We will not allow it to be crept in future, as such an act is totally contrary to law. As far as the impleaded respondents are concerned, they shall stand relieved forthwith from their present posts and the competent authority of the concerned State shall give them posting orders within a week from today. They shall be entitled to join within three weeks thereafter.
With the aforesaid directions, these interlocutory applications stand disposed of.17
As far as other directions are concerned in the matter, the same shall be taken up on 5.10.2016.
CONMT.PET.(C) No.532/2013 In W.P.(C) No.631/2004 After we have disposed of all the interlocutory applications for impleadment as party respondents in the Writ Petition and modification of this Court's order dated 13.7.2016, we had fond hope that the controversy in this regard in all possibility has been put to rest but, a pregnant one, Mr. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Telangana Parents Foundation, would submit that he has obtained certain information which may be quite shocking to the conscience of this Court as there is flagrant violation of the legislative command and all norms. He has filed a list of Professors working as Personal Assistants/Private Secretaries. We reproduce the said list hereinunder :
“List of Professors working as PA/PS
1. Prof. Shivasankar, Telangana University, working as PA to Mr. Swami Goud, MLC and Chairman of Legislative Council.
2. Prof. Bhaskar, Kakatiya University, working as PA/PS to Madhusudana Chari, MLA and Speaker of Telangana Assembly.
3. Prof. Srinivas Reddy, Agriculture University, working as PA/PS to Padma Devendar Reddy, MLA and Dy. Speaker of Telangana Assembly.” A copy of the said list has been handed over to Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the State of Telangana.
We shall address this issue in course of next week. Let the matter be listed on 15.9.2016.
18It is made clear that we have not passed any order today as we desire that Mr. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the State of Telangana shall verify the facts and assist Mr. P. Vishwanath Setty, learned Senior Counsel, who shall, in his turn, address the Court. We are absolutely certain that the concerned State shall take steps in accordance with law and not in deviation thereof. We say so as we think, we may not be required to pass any order issuing a direction. We say no more on this point. All other aspects of the matter shall be addressed on the next date of hearing.
Writ Petition (C) No.340 of 2016 Let the brief of this writ petition be served upon Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitory General for the Union of India, who is present in Court, as also upon Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. List the matter on 5.10.2016.
Registry is directed to show the names of Mr. B. K. Prasad and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, as the counsel for the Union of India, and the State of Uttar Pradesh, respectively, in the cause list.
(Sanjay Kumar-II) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master