Allahabad High Court
Subed Khan And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic ... on 3 July, 2018
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 23 [A.F.R.] Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7292 of 2018 Petitioner :- Subed Khan And 2 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Irfan Ahmad,Abhishek Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Rakesh Kr Srivastava,Shubhash Ch Mishra Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in Court, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that there is a registered society in the name of Anjuman Ittehad-O-Taraqqui registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The aforesaid society runs and manages an educational Institution upto the level of Intermediate. The Institution has been accorded recognition under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921. The Institution is receiving aid from the State Government upto the level of Junior High School and in view of the provisions contained under Rule 13 (A) of the Act of 1978, the salaries till the Institution is not receiving aid upto the level of High School or Intermediate, shall be paid under the Act of 1978.
4. The petitioners claim that after the Institution being brought within the Payment of Salaries Act, there were twenty two teaching and non-teaching staffs, who continued to receive salary under the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978.
5. The Institution, which had been brought upto the level of Highschool, was subsequently upgraded upto the level of Intermediate vide order dated 30.6.1994 under Section 7 (A) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act without any aid.
6. After the Institution was upgraded upto the level of High School and Intermediate, salaries of teaching and non-teaching staffs were stopped.
7. The teachers and other employees of the Institution, being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No.5897 (SB) of 1988 before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein an order was passed on 3.8.1988 whereby the direction was issued to the District Basic Education Officer to ensure payment of salaries to the petitioners and in pursuance thereof, the salaries were paid to the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions.
8. The Deputy Director of Eduction, vide order dated 17.6.1989 created one post of Principal, two posts of L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher, two posts of Class-IV employee and also recognized teaching and non-teaching staffs consisting of twenty two persons. In view of the aforesaid, total posts created in the Institution became twenty seven.
9. One Riyaz Ahmad who was working in the Institution and receiving salary, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2012, Kamruddin and Shri Zahur Ahmad, who were also receiving salary, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2016 and 31.3.2017 respectively.
10. The Institution is a minority Institution, therefore the aforesaid vacancies are to be filled up in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 16 (FF) and Regulation 17 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Accordingly, advertisement was issued on 28.3.2016 in daily newspapers viz. Hindustan (Hindi) and Pioneer (English) and thereafter issued on 11.06.2017 in daily newspapers viz. Swatantra Bharat (Hindi) and Pioneer (English).
11. The petitioner no.1 having requisite qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed. and T.E.T. (Upper Primary), petitioner no.2 having M.A. (English subject) and B.Ed. along with T.E.T. (Upper Primary) and petitioner no.3 having B.A. (Hindi & Urdu subject) and B.Ed. along with T.E.T. (Upper Primary), applied for selection and appointment.
12. Selection Committee was constituted. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Selection Committee on 15.5.2016 whereas petitioner no.3 appeared on 6.8.2017. The Selection Committee made recommendation of the petitioner no.1 for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Biology subject, petitioner no.2 as Assistant Teacher in English subject and petitioner no.3 as Assistant Teacher in Hindi. The Committee of Management, after considering the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, resolved to make appointment of the petitioners by obtaining approval from the District Inspector of Schools as required under Section 16 (FF) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and submitted papers along with letter of approval in the office of District Inspector of Schools on 16.5.2016, copy of which has also be forwarded to District Basic Education Officer on 6.8.2018 and received the same in the office of District Basic Education Officer on 8.8.2017.
13. The District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order for approval even after expiry of one month's period, therefore, the Committee of Management, in the meeting held on 24.7.2016, resolved that due to non-passing of an order by the District Inspector of Schools for grant of approval or refuse to grant of approval in view of the provisions contained under Section 17 (g) of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the selection is deemed to be approved, and issued appointment letters to the petitioner nos.1 and 2 on 25.7.2016 and to the petitioner no.3 on 11.9.2017. In pursuance to the appointment letters issued on the aforesaid dates, the petitioners joined on 1.8.2017 and 18.9.2017 respectively in the Institution.
14. Manager of the Institution sent a letter on 23.9.2017 requesting therein to ensure payment of salary to the petitioners and also submitted salary bills vide letter dated 30.8.2016, but the District Inspector of Schools failed to ensure payment of salary to the petitioners. The District Basic Education Officer, to bound pressure upon the Committee of Management, passed an order on 17.10.2017 and threatened to appoint Authorized Controller over the Institution holding that the appointment of petitioner no.3 is illegal being not made in accordance with the provisions contained in U.P. Recognized Basic Education (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 and to the same effect, the Finance and Accounts Officer issued letter on 1.11.2017 to the Committee of Management.
15. The Committee of Management, after receiving the order, sent representation to the District Basic Education Officer as well as District Inspector of Schools requesting therein that the appointments of the petitioners were deemed to be approved and in pursuance thereof, they were issued appointment letters. Procedure prescribed in regard to the selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in minority Institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was duly followed and thereafter, appointments have been made, therefore, the order of the District Basic Education Officer holding that the procedure of 1978 Rules is not followed, is not justifiable.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in assailing the orders of the District Basic Education Officer and Finance Officer of the Office of the District Basic Education Officer dated 17.10.2017, 1.11.2017 and also order dated 19.1.2018, submitted that the order of the District Basic Education Officer is wholly without jurisdiction. In regard to an Institution which is recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971, the District Basic Education Officer and Finance Officer have no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter and it is the District Inspector of Schools, who is empowered under Section 16 (FF) to pass an appropriate order for grant of approval. He further submitted that prior to passing of the impugned orders, the petitioners have not been issued notice nor have been afforded opportunity of hearing, therefore, the order is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.25 of 2006 titled 'Smt. Manju Awasthi and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 6.11.2012'; and further upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ajay Pratap Rai v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and others reported in 2007 (3) UPLBEC 106; and upon the judgment passed in Special Appeal No.306 of 2016 titled 'Abdullah v. State of U.P. and 5 others' decided on 3.8.2016.
17. On the other hand, Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Basic Education Officer, made submissions in support of the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer and submitted that the Institution in question is not receiving aid upto Highschool and Intermediate level and the salary of the teachers and other employees were disbursed under U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978, therefore, the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer is justified.
18. Learned Standing Counsel and counsel for the other respondents have also adopted the same submissions as advanced by Sri Ajay Kumar learned counsel for the respondent- District Inspector of Schools.
19. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy in regard to the applicability of the provisions, after up-gradation of Institution upto the level of Highschool, is not res integra. The law in this regard, has been well settled in the case of Smt. Manju Awasthi and others v. State of U.P. (supra) and Ajay Pratap Rai v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and others (supra), therefore submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted.
20. Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material available on record as well as the law reports relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
21. It is admitted case of the parties that the Institution in question is a minority Institution, therefore the same is sufe-guarded under the provisions of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. The facts of the case are that initially, the Institution was a Junior Highschool recognized under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and was receiving grant-in-aid as Junior Highschool level. The Institution was granted recognition as Highschool and Intermediate without any aid (Vitvihin) under Section 7(d) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 on 5.6.1986 and in the year 1994 respectively. In view of the above, it is settled that in case the upgraded Institution has been granted recognition without any aid, salaries of the teachers worked in the Institution shall be paid under the provisions of U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 and in this regard, Section 13(d) was added in the Statute Book. Three teachers, namely, Riyaz Ahmad, Kamruddin and Shri Zahur Ahmad who were discharging their duties in the Institution when it was at Junior Highschool level, retired from services on 30.6.2012, 31.3.2016 and 31.3.2017 respectively. The Committee of Management resolved to make appointment against the existing vacancies.
22. Now, this Court has to see validity of appointment of the petitioners particularly with regard to the deemed approval. The Institution was upgraded upto the level of Intermediate and provisions of Act of 1921 became applicable. The Institution is a minority Institution, therefore, the provisions of Regulation 17 of Chapter II and Section 16 FF are attracted in regard to selection and appointment, inasmuch as approval to the said selection. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention Regulation 17 framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which reads as under:
"17. The procedure for filling up the vacancy of the head of institution and teachers by direct recruitment in any recognised institution referred to in Section 16-FF, shall be as follows:
(a) After the management has determined the number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment, the posts shall be advertised by the manager of the institution in at least one Hindi and one English newspaper having adequate circulation in the State giving particulars as to the nature (i.e., whether temporary/permanent) and number of vacancies, descriptions of post (i.e., Principal or Headmaster, Lecturer or L.T., C.T. or J.T.C./B.T.C. grade teacher including the subject or subjects in which the lecturer or teacher is required), scale or pay and other allowances, experience required minimum qualification and age prescribed, if any, for the post and prescribing a date which should not ordinarily be less than two weeks from the date of advertisement) by which the applications shall be received by the Manager. A copy of the advertisement shall be simultaneously sent to the Inspector concerned.
Notes-(1) All vacancies in the posts of teachers and the head of institution existing at the time of advertisement shall be advertised.
(2) No new post shall be advertised unless sanction of the appropriate authority for the creation thereof has been received by the management.
(b) All applications shall be made in the form prescribed by the management and shall contain all necessary particulars about qualifications, teaching experience and other activities and be accompanied by certified copies of all the necessary certificates and testimonials. The management may charge cost of the application form not exceeding the amount referred to in Clause (2) of Regulation 10.
(c) An application by a person employed in an institution and applying for a post elsewhere or in the same institution shall not be withheld by his employer but shall be forwarded to the authority concerned immediately.
(d) All applications received from the candidates shall be serially numbered and entered in a register and particulars of the candidates noted under appropriate columns. The candidates to be called for interview shall be seven for each post (the number of applicants, permitting). The Manager shall intimate by registered post all the members of the Selection Committee as well as all such candidates as are called for interview, the date, time and place of selection at least ten days before it is held. The Selection Committee will hold the selection accordingly. If on account of any unavoidable reason, the expert selected by the Committee of Management under Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 16-FF is unable to attend the selection on the date fixed the meeting of the Selection Committee shall be postponed.
(e) The provisions of Clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 10 and those of Regulations 11, 12 and 16 shall mutatis mutandis apply to selections made under this regulation.
(f) A panel of experts consisting of fifteen or more persons selected from category (a) referred to in Regulation 14 shall be drawn by the Director for each region and be sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education concerned, The Regional Deputy Director of Education shall out of the said panel communicate the names of three experts in a sealed cover to the management through its Manager as soon as he receives any request for supply of names of experts from him. The regional panel of experts shall, however, remain valid until it is replaced by a new one.
(g) किसी पद के लिए समस्त अभ्यर्थियों का साक्षात्कार कर लिए जाने के पश्चात चयन समिति का सभापति किये गए चयन की कार्यवाहियों पर दो प्रतियों में एक टिप्पणी तैयार कराएगा जिसमे चुने गए अभ्यर्थी का नाम तथा प्रतीक्षा सूचि के दो अन्य अभ्यर्थियों के नाम उल्लिखित किये जायेंगे, इस प्रकार तैयार के गई टिप्पणी पर चयन समिति के सभापति तथा अन्य सदस्य हस्ताक्षर करेंगे और अपना अपना पूर्ण नाम, पद नाम और पता तथा दिनांक उल्लिखित करेंगे, सभापति इस टिप्पणी की एक प्रति तथा विनियम 10 के खंड (च) में निर्दिष्ट विवरण की एक प्रति धारा 16 - चच के अधीन यथा अपेक्षित अनुमोदन के लिए, यथास्थिति, संभागीय उप-शिक्षा निदेशक या निरीक्षक को तुरंत अग्रसारित करेगा, सम्बंधित अभिलेखों के प्राप्त होने के दिनांक के एक माह के भीतर यथास्थिति संभागीय उप शिक्षा निदेशक या निरीक्षक, उन पर अपना निर्णय दे देंगे और ऐसा न करने पर अनुमोदन प्रदान कर दिया गया समझा जायेगा"^
23. In regard to the provisions referred hereinabove, the Manager of the Institution issued separate proceedings of selection by issuing advertisement on 28.3.2016 in daily newspapers viz. Hindustan (Hindi) and Pioneer (English) and thereafter issued on 11.06.2017 in daily newspapers viz. Swatantra Bharat (Hindi) and Pioneer (English) and constituted a Selection Committee in accordance with the aforesaid provisions.
24. In response to the advertisement issued, the petitioners applied for and the duly constituted Selection Committee selected the petitioners and made recommendation by placing the petitioners in the select-list for the appointment after getting approval from District Inspector of Schools. Thereafter, Manager of the Institution submitted entire papers before the District Inspector of Schools for grant of approval as required under Section 16 (FF) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Section 16 (FF) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is quoted below:
"16-FF. 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 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 qualification 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 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."
25. On perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is crystal clear that without approval of the District Inspector of Schools, no appointment letter can be issued to the candidates selected for appointment. It is further recorded that under Regulation 17(g), it has been provided that after submission of papers for grant of approval, in case District Inspector of Schools does not pass any order of approval or refuse to grant of approval, then after expiry of one month's period, it is deemed that the approval has been granted.
26. The Committee of Management after expiry of the one month's period and due to non-receiving of grant of approval or refuse to grant of approval resolved that the appointment has been deemed approved and thereafter, vide appointment orders dated 25.7.2016 the petitioner nos.1 and 2 were issued letters of appointment and vide appointment order dated 11.9.2017, the petitioner no.3 was issued letter of appointment.
27. In pursuance to the letters of appointment issued to the petitioners, they joined in the Institution and are discharging their duties.
28. Perusal of the order impugned passed by the District Basic Education Officer shows that there is finding recorded that the procedure prescribed under the provisions of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 has not been followed and he refused to ensure payment of salary with the order of threatening that in case further correspondence is made, he will proceed to make recommendation for appointment of Authorized Controller.
29. The only question in the present case is that whether the District Basic Education Officer or the Accounts Officer of the office of the District Basic Education Officer has power under U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 to pass any order in regard to an Institution which has been upgraded utpo the level of Intermediate College and has been accorded recognition under the Act of 1921. This question was considered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. District Judge, Varanasi and others reported in 1981 UPLBEC 336. Relevant paragraph 17 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"17. A basic school or a Junior High School is thus different from a High School or an Intermediate College. On the plaint language of these definitions the same institution cannot be called a basic school or a Junior High School as well as a High School or an Intermediate College. Each one has a distinct legal entity. On a basic school or a Junior High School being upgraded as a High School or an Intermediate College the identity of the institution known as basic school or Junior High School is lost. It ceases to exist as a legal entity and in its place another institution with a new legal entity comes into being. One cannot be equated with the other."
30. On perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that status of an Institution after being upgraded losses its significance and the lower section of the School after upgradation completely merges into the upgraded Institution. Interpreting the provisions otherwise would lead to complete absurdity and create a chaotic multiple Code for governance of the different parts of the same Institution. An Institution cannot have a multiple Code for its governance. There is no provision permitting continued applicability of the laws in relation to a Junior High School even after its up-gradation.
31. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Manju Awasthi and others (supra), after considering the entire provisions, has held as under:
"16. In the case in hand, while granting recognition as High School, the Board clearly imposed a condition that the management has to make appointment of Principal of High School. Obviously, such appointment was not to be made as an interim measure or on part-time basis and, therefore, the appointment of Principal has to be in respect of upgraded institution as per the procedure prescribed in 1982 Act and the management could not have made appointment by resorting to the provisions applicable to Junior High School, since after upgradation as High School, no appointment of Headmaster/Headmistress of Junior High School could have been made in law as the post of Headmaster/Headmistress of Junior High School becomes inoperative after upgradation since only one head of the institution could have continued at a time. Therefore, there could be only one Principal and that too of High School. This is what has been held by Division Bench in Ajay Pratap Rai (Supra) also and in my view, that is the only cogent and practical solution in such cases otherwise it would create a chaotic situation. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly."
The judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge which is impugned in the leading appeal being Special appeal No. 25 of 2006 relying on the Full Bench in State of U.P. Vs. District Judge (Supra) and Division Bench judgment in Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs. State of U.P. and others as well as after considering the relevant provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Sections 2(b) 2(d) and 7A as well as provisions of 1982 Act, held that after a Junior High School is upgraded as High School, the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education 1921 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 are applicable and selection made by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari of appellant Manju Awasthi was quashed. We are of the view that judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge cannot be faulted and we do not find any good ground in the appeal to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Other judgements of Hon'ble Single Judges which are under challenge place reliance on the judgment of Smt. Sushila Gupta which was subject matter of challenge in appeal no. 25 of 2006. We having endorsed the view taken by Hon'ble Single Judge in Smt. Sushila Gupta's case do not find any fault with the judgements of Hon'ble Single Judge which are under challenge in this appeal.
The selections made by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari under the provisions of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, have rightly been quashed in the writ petitions by Hon'ble Single Judge on the ground that after upgradation of a Junior High School, selection/appointment is to be made in accordance with 1921 Act and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. As noticed above, we have found that the State Government as well as the educational authorities have not been properly construing the provisions of Section 7A and under the misconception, they have granted recognition to the institution under section 7A, for the first time whereas recognition under section 7A is to be granted to an existing recognised institution within the meaning of section 2(b). We thus, feel that certain directions are necessary to be issued in this context. We have already observed that our observations and interpretation of Section 7A in no manner shall affect any recognition already granted to an institution under section 7A and institution which has been granted recognition shall be treated to be duly recognised but necessary action which has not yet been taken with respect to the said institution is required to be taken by the educational authorities as per our observation. The appeals are disposed of with following directions:
1. The judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge impugned in the appeal holding that after upgradation of a Junior High School to High School, appointment and selection on the post of Head Master shall be made in accordance with 1921 Act and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 are upheld and prayer of the appellant to set aside the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge is refused.
2. The recognition/permission under section 7A shall be granted to an institution which is already recognised institution within meaning of section 2(b) of 1921 Act.
3. Recognition to a junior high school as High School is to be granted in accordance with the provisions of section 7(4) of 1921 Act.
4. The State is fully empowered to grant recognition under section 7(4) or Section 7A without finance (Vitta vihin).
5. After an institution is granted recognition for the first time as a High School minimum necessary post of teachers and Head Master is contemplated to be created even though without finance(Vitta Vihin) so as to fill up those posts in accordance with 1921 Act and 1982 Act.
6. Against the recognition/permission granted under section 7A, the appointment of a part time teacher or instructor as contemplated under section 7A(a) shall be continued to be made by the management as per the Government Orders issued from time to time regulating their terms and conditions. "
32. In view of the provisions contained under Regulation 17 (g) and on perusal of the entire material on record, it is well established that on submission of papers to the District Inspector of Schools, he has not passed any order within a period of one month stipulated in the aforesaid Regulations, therefore, it is deemed that the approval has been accorded to the selection of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teachers. Therefore, they are entitled to get salary from the State Exchequer.
33. On overall consideration of the judgments referred above and the impugned orders passed by the District Basic Education Officer and the Accounts Officer of the Office of the District Basic Education Officer, it is well established that in case the Institution is upgraded upto the level of Intermediate College, the District Basic Education Officer or the Finance & Accounts Officer of the office of the District Basic Education Officer has no authority to pass order of approval or disapproval in regard to appointment made in Minority Institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The appointment shall be made in accordance with the provisions contained under the Act of 1921 and Regulations framed thereunder. On perusal of the material on record, it is well established that the advertisements inviting applications were issued in two newspaper i.e. one in Hindi and other in English as required under Regulation 17. Duly constituted Selection Committee considered the candidature of the candidates appeared before the Selection Committee and thereafter, on the basis of quality point marks, recommended the name of the petitioners for appointment, therefore interference by passing the impugned orders at the level of District Basic Education Officer and the Accounts Officer of the office of District Basic Education Officer are not sustainable in law being wholly without jurisdiction.
34. This Court holds that both the Authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. In the matter of a recognized Intermediate College under the Act of 1921 managed by the minority, the District Basic Education Officer and the Finance Officer of the office of the District Basic Education Officer have no authority of law to pass any order, thus the impugned orders dated 17.10.2017, 1.11.2017 and 19.01.2018 are hereby set aside.
35. This writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed with the costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the District Basic Education Officer which shall be payable to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. It is further directed to the respondents to ensure payment of salary to the petitioners month by month regularly, inasmuch as arrears of salary with effect from the date of joining of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 i.e. 1.8.2017 and joining of the petitioner no.3 i.e. 18.09.2017 in the Institution till the date of passing of the judgment.
Order Date :- 3.7.2018 GK Sinha/Manoj