Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neha Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81821 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22333 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Neha Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bajrang Bahadur Singh,Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi,Satya Prakash Singh,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Yadav Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that as one post fell vacant in the fourth- respondent's Institution on 09.12.2017 due to promotion of Assistant Teacher promoted to the post of Lecturer in Civics. When there are no regular Art teacher in the Institution, though the post of Art teacher is sanctioned. Considering the necessity of the Art teacher the fourth- respondent has made an application to fill up the post of Art teacher before the second- respondent vide letter dated 14.12.2017. The said request was not considered by the respondents. The Committee of Management has approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The same was disposed of on 07.02.2018, directing the respondent no.2 to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of two months and the respondents failed to comply with the said orders.
3. The Committee of Management i.e. fourth- respondent herein decided to proceed with the selection of Assistant Teacher, Arts. Accordingly, a notification was issued on 03.05.2018 as required under Regulation- 17 of Chapter 2 framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. As the petitioner is having the requisite qualification to the advertising post, she submitted an application on 04.05.2018 and thereafter interview was conducted on 20.05.2018. Total 14 candidates have applied and the petitioner was selected vide order dated 21.05.2018 and the fourth- respondent has sent the proposal to the second- respondent for approval. When the respondents have not passed any order including the appointment of the petitioner the Management has issued an appointment letter to the petitioner on 11.07.2018 and she joined her duties on 12.7.2018, and the salaries were not paid to the petitioner from the month of July, 2018 and when the salaries were not paid she approached this Court by filing Writ A No.17251 of 2018 while pendency of this writ petition the respondents have passed the present impugned order on 03.08.2018, disapproving the selection of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Vide impugned order the respondents have disapproved the proposals sent by the fourth- respondent on two grounds. Firstly, the amendment was made to the Regulations-17 vide Government Order dated 12.03.2018. Hence, the selection made is contrary to the said amendment. Second ground is that one Shri Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Teacher, Social Science is being promoted as Lecturer instead of filling up of the Social Science, Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade, the Institution has appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade, Arts. The said appointment is also contrary to the Regulation-17 Chapter-2 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
5. As the post of the Assistant Teacher fell vacant on 09.12.2017 and by letter dated 14.12.2017 itself the proposals were sent to the Government for approval by initiating the process of selection and when the said approval was not granted, the petitioner has approached this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2018. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the process of selection was initiated much prior to issuance of amendment to Regulation-17.
6. The second ground taken for rejection is that when the post of Social Science fell vacant the respondents ought not to have initiated process for selection of Assistant Teacher, Arts is also contrary to the observations made by this Court in Pati Ram Pal Vs. District Inspector of Schools and Others, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 319. Hence, at any date the objections raised by the respondents in disapproving the appointment of the petitioner in their order dated 03.08.2018 are contrary to the orders of this Court in Pati Ram Pal (supra), and the full bench judgment of this Court in Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 5 AWC 4719.
7. To answer the above said two grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the observations made in Pati Ram Pal (supra), which reads as below:-
"The interpretation of this provision came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in B.P. Tripathi v. State of U.P. and other, 1985 UPLBEC 669. It was held by the Court that the expression"............ for teaching the subject in which the teacher........ in the L.T. grade is required" cannot be read as "for teaching the subject which was being taught by the teacher whose vacancy is to be fulfilled". It is thus clear that the Committee of Management is entitled to promote such teacher to the vacancy caused in L.T. grade who is required to teach the subject which the Committee of Management thinks necessary in the interest of the institution."
8. Also in full bench judgment in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra), has formulated a question 5(b), which reads as follows:-
"5(b) Whether initiation of process by an advertisement prior to 25 January 1999 can lead to suggest that even after statutory withdrawal of the substantive power of the Committee of Management to make ad hoc appointment against short term vacancy, it still retains the same after 25 January 1999, merely because the process of selection was initiated earlier."
9. The question 5(b) is answered in paragraph 11, which reads hereinbelow:-
"11. In certain other contexts, the Supreme Court has held, for instance, that a selection process has to be governed by the Rules and Government Orders in existence on the date on which the process is initiated. In N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"...Where proceedings are initiated for selection by issuing advertisement, the selection should normally be regulated by the then existing rules and Government orders and any amendment of the rules or the Government order pending the selection should not affect the validity of the selection made by the selecting authority or the Public Service Commission unless the amended Rules or the amended Government orders, issued in exercise of its statutory power either by express provisions or by necessary intendment indicate the amended Rules shall be applicable to the pending selections. See P. Mahendran V. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411 : JT (1989) 4 SC 459."
10. In view of the above observations, made by this Court the impugned order is contrary to the order of this Court. Hence, requested to quash the same.
11. In reply to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as directed by this Court in earlier judgment the respondents have rightly considered the case as per the amended provisions of Regulations- 17 of Chapter- 2 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The amendment was made vide order dated 01.03.2018, whereas an appointment was made by the Management on 21.05.2018 which is subsequent to the amendment. Secondly, that the appointment is contrary to the Regulation-17, Chapter-2 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as there is no sanctioned post of L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher Arts, only Social Science subject is available. Hence, the appointment made by the Committee of Management to the post of L.T. Grade, Arts is contrary to the said Regulations.
12. So in view of the language used in the said Regulation while notifying the post, the Management has to specify the subject which they are having sanctioned. But in the instant case, as one Social Science post is vacant, instead of filling up of the said post the fourth- respondent has appointed the petitioner as L.T. Grade, Assistant Teacher in Arts, which is contrary to the language used in Regulation-17. In view of the above, as the disapproval order passed by the respondent as in conformity with the Regulation.17 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and also the amendment of Regulation 17 by Government order dated 12.03.2018.
13. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner there is no specific assertion in the petition about the existence of sanctioned post of L.T. Grade Arts but he contended that initially one post of L.T. Grade, Assistant Teacher Arts was sanctioned to the Institution and the same was not filled up for want of necessity. But when there is a requirement the Management is entitled to appoint any Teacher in any subject within the sanctioned strength. Without deviating the same, based on the requirement the fourth- respondent has selected and appointed the petitioner as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher, Arts.
14. Learned counsel further submitted that while interpreting the language used in the Regulations this Court in Pati Ram Pal (supra) case has held that the Committee of Management is entitled to promote/ appoint such teachers to the vacancy caused who is required to teach the subjects as per the requirement and necessity, for the benefit of Institution. The language which was used in Regulation-17 was also identical to the language used in Regulation 6(i) of Chapter-2 of Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
15. Hence, the first objection raised by the respondents in rejecting/ disapproving the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the findings of this Court in Pati Ram Pal (supra) and as far as second objection is concerned, that issue was answered by the full bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) stating that where the proceedings are initiated for process of selection, the selections would be regulated by the Rules which are governed on that date. If any amendments, will only be applicable to the subsequent selection process. In the instant case, as the selection process was initiated much prior to the amendment made in March, 2018.
16. In view of the above findings in two judgments, as the impugned order dated 03.08.2018 is contrary to law and is accordingly quashed, remanding the matter to the respondents to re-visit the appointment of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 16.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.)