Allahabad High Court
Kaushlendra Prasad Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 4 July, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45443 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4950 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kaushlendra Prasad Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Tiwari,Amar Deep Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sudeep Seth learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amar Deep Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 4. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party no. 5 is dispensed with since it is merely a proforma party.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties for payment of salary to petitioners alongwith arrears ever since the date of joining and for continuation of payment of regular salary as and when the same falls due. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to take expeditious decision with regard to payment of salaries to petitioners have also been sought.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 5, Rahat Janta Inter College is a minority institution enjoying such status and is also under grant-in-aid where one post of Principal, six posts of Lecturers, fifteen posts of Assistant Teacher L.T Grade, ten posts of Assistant Teacher City Grade, three Clerks and twelve peons is sanctioned.
4. It is submitted that due to vacancy on certain posts, the same was sought to be filled up by means of direct recruitment for which an advertisement was issued on 11.04.2017 whereafter interview was held on 05.05.2017 and recommendations with regard to selection where thereafter forwarded by the manager of the college to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 23.05.2017 seeking approval. He further submits that despite receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 23.05.2017, no final decision or approval was taken by the authority concerned due to which as per deeming clause under Regulation 17 (g) of Chapter-II of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, by virtue of legal fiction provided therein, approval of such selections by the authority competent was deemed. It is therefore submitted that since appointment letters in lieu thereof were issued on 09.05.2017, petitioners are entitled for their salaries with arrears thereof.
5. Learned counsel has drawn attention to judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in similar circumstances pertaining to the same advertisement, same college with same proposition of law in Writ-A No. 1674 of 2023, Shyam Jee Tiwari and others versus State of U.P. and others whereby the aforesaid petition has been allowed in terms of provisions of Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act read with Regulation 17 (g). Further directions have also been issued for payment of salaries to petitioners therein alongwith arrears. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment has thereafter been rendered in Writ-A No. 1965 of 2023, Anil Kumar Mishra and others versus State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 2686 of 2023, Ayodhya Prasad and 3 others versus State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 2937 of 2023, Ravindra Pratap Singh and 2 others versus State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 3672 of 2023, Shahnawaj Alam and 3 others versus State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 17303 of 2017, Brij Narayan Tripathi and others versus State of U.P. and others following the initial judgment rendered by this Court. It is submitted that time barred special appeals have been preferred against the aforesaid judgments in which delay has not yet been condoned.
6. He is therefore seeking parity with the aforesaid judgments.
7. Mr. P.K. Singh, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 4 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that the aforesaid judgments are inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case since a relevant issue pertaining to petitioners' appointment and approval has not been considered. It is submitted that for purposes of applicability of Regulation 17 (g) of the Regulations, it is essential that at least one month should have passed from the date of receipt of concerned records from the Selection Committee and deemed approval would be applicable only in case the District Inspector of Schools fails to give a decision within one month from date of receipt of such records.
8. He has submitted that in the present case, it is admitted by petitioners in paragraphs 17, 20 and 21 of the writ petition that interview was fixed for 05.05.2017 whereafter the college submitted letter dated 23.05.2017 requiring approval by the District Inspector of Schools but even prior thereto, appointment letters have been issued to petitioners on 09.05.2017 itself. It is therefore submitted that deemed approval in terms of Regulation 17 (g) would be applicable only after no decision was taken by the authority concerned till 23.06.2017 and therefore in the present case the deeming clause under Regulation 17 (g) would not apply since the appointment letters have been issued even prior to sending of recommendations for approval. It is submitted that aforesaid fact has not been considered in the judgments which have been relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners.
9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that the judgments referred to by learned counsel for petitioners pertained to the same recruitments and the recommendations dated 23.05.2017 sent by the same college. However, a perusal of aforesaid judgments also indicates the fact that submission as raised by learned State Counsel in the present writ petition has escaped consideration.
10. It also transpires that after appointment letters were issued by the management to petitioners and upon failure of the authorities to grant financial approval, the management of the college concerned had filed Writ-A No. 5298 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.08.2022 directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider grievance and to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within stipulated time frame. In pursuance thereof, the District Inspector of Schools after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, referred the entire dispute to the State Government vide letter dated 16.12.2022. It is admitted that till date State Government has not taken any decision in terms thereof.
11. A perusal of letter dated 16.12.2022 indicates that names of petitioners have also been indicated therein alongwith others whose writ petitions have been allowed as indicated hereinabove.
12. From a consideration of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite evident that after advertisement, selections were made by the Selection Committee whereafter the college concerned has sent letter dated 23.05.2017 to the District Inspector of Schools requiring approval for such selections. It is not denied by the opposite parties that such a letter dated 23.05.2017 was received by them. It is also admitted that till date no final decision has been taken by the authorities concerned regarding the aforesaid recommendations.
13. The only distinction indicated by learned State Counsel in the present case for deviating from the judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court is that the deeming clause under Regulation 17 (g) would be inapplicable since appointment letters were issued on 09.05.2017, even prior to the letter dated 23.05.2017.
14. From a perusal of the letter dated 16.12.2022 by the District Inspector of Schools, it appears that there is no contradiction or objection raised with regard to either the selection process or eligibility or qualification of petitioners who have been recommended for appointment in pursuance of their selection.
15. In the considered opinion of this Court, it being admitted that the authorities have in fact received the letter dated 23.05.2017 and no final decision being taken thereupon in terms of Regulation 17 (g) of the Regulations, the deeming clause would in fact apply only after 23.06.2017.
16. The provisions of Section 16FF of the Act of 1921 with regard to savings as to minority institutions would therefore be applicable. The relevant provision is as follows:-
"16FF- Savings as to minority institutions. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management :
Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall, -
(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution, be an expert selected by the Committee of Management from a panel of experts prepared by the Director;
(b) in the case of appointment of a teacher, be the Head of the Institution concerned.
(2) The procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless, -
(a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education; and
(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.
(4) The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible.
(5) Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section, the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the date of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of a teacher.
(6) Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub-section (5) shall be final."
17. It is quite evident from the letter of District Inspector of Schools as indicated hereinabove that no objection has been raised by the District Inspector of Schools with regard to the selection or eligibility of petitioners and therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, the appointment letter of petitioners dated 09.05.2017 would in fact come into effect only after the period prescribed under Regulation 17 (g) of the Act of 1921.
18. In view of aforesaid, the judgments referred to hereinabove by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in similar facts and circumstances would be applicable upon petitioners but only in terms of Regulation 17 (g) and only after 25.06.2017 which would be considered to be the effective date of appointment letter of petitioners.
19. In view of aforesaid, it is held that petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of judgment and order dated 22.02.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 1674 of 2023, Shyam Jee Tiwari and others versus State of U.P. and others but only w.e.f 23.06.2017. The arrears of salary of petitioners with effect from such dates shall be computed and paid to petitioners within a period of four months and petitioners shall also be entitled to their regular continuous salary as and when the same falls due in terms of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
20. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed in view of aforesaid directions. Parties to bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Satish