Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Nath Yadav Son Of Late Hari ... vs The State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ... on 24 July, 2007
Author: Vineet Saran
Bench: Vineet Saran
JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as teachers in the additional sections of Classes VI, VII, VIII, IX and X opened by the respondent No. 5-School (which is a minority institution under the grant-in-aid scheme of the Government). Since the salary to the teachers who were teaching in the additional sections duly if proved/sanctioned by the District Inspector of Schools was not being paid by the State Government on the ground that it was the responsibility of the management to make payment of salary to such teachers, the petitioners represented to the respondent-authorities and when their claim was not decided, they filed. Writ Petition No. 35218 of 2003, which was disposed of on 4.10.2004 with the direction to the Director of Education to decide their representation with regard to payment of salary from the State funds. Purusuant thereto, the Director of Education has claim of the petitioners has been rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has also been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State-respondents to pay salary and other benefits regularly to the petitioner alongwith arrears from the date of their appointment.
2. I have heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Counsel appealing for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri A.K. Dubey for the respondent No. 5-institution and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
3. It is not disputed that due permission for opening additional sections in the institution was granted by the District Inspector of Schools and it was for teaching such additional classes that the petitioners had been given appointment on 19.12.1991. The Doctor of Education has declined to make payment of salary to the petitioners under the grant-in-aid scheme on the ground that though opening of new sections may have been approved but the condition imposed therein was that the responsibility for payment of salary to such additional teachers would be that of the Committee of Management. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. State of U.P. 2004 (5) AWC 4911 wherein, n similar facts and circumstances, this Court has framed two issues, namely, (i) Whether the State Government is liable for payment of salary to teachers, appointed, for additional sections which had been duly recognized and sanctioned by the District Inspector of Schools but additional posts not created by the State Government; and (ii) Whether the selection of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 48290 of 2002 as assistant teachers in the institution in question his been properly made and whether the State Government would able to pay their salary.
4. While answering the first question this Court had held that "once a competent authority has approved the opening of new sections in the primary section of the institution, which is admittedly under the grant-in-aid list of the State Government, the liability for payment of salary to teacher appointed on such additional posts would be that of the State Government." Although in the said case while granting approval for opening new sections the District Inspector of Schools had not laid down any condition with regard to non-payment of salary to such additional teachers from the State funds which condition is there in the present case in hand, but the Apex Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration v. Mr. Rajni Vali has held that even when permission for starting additional classes is granted with condition that no grant-in-aid would be provided for additional staff, the Apex Court has held that the State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges since it is well settled that imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of the State Administration and is such circumstances of Supreme Court directed the Administration to make payment of salary to teachers appointed to run additional classes.
5. After considering the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj 1999 (2) AWC 962 (FB) : 1999 (1) UPLBEC 1, this Court held that it would the responsibility of the State to make payment of salary to such additional teachers who were appointed to run the approved additional claXsses. I do not find any reason to differ with the said judgment and as such in the present case also, since the additional classes were opened after due approval of the District Inspector of Schools he liability for payment of salary to such teachers would be that of the State Government.
6. Now coming to the question as to whether the petitioner were properly appointed as per procedure prescribed, nothing has been stated in the writ petition as to what procedure had been followed by the Committee of Management at the time of appointment of the petitioners. It has merely been stated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that proper procedure has been adopted, which as been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Although learned Counsel the petitioners has stated that the appointment of the petitioners was duly approved by the District inspector of Schools inasmuch as a certificate issued on 1.4.2003, by the Committee of Management with regard to the petitioner' teaching in the additional classes was duly counter-signed the said certificate has not been filed alongwith the writ petition. The said question has also not been considered by the Director of Education while deciding the representation of the petitioners. Accordingly, although this Court is of the view that payment of salary to such teachers who were appointed to run additional classes duly approved by the educational authorities would be that of the Government but the liability to make payment would be only to such teachers who have been duly appointed, in accordance with law, after allowing selection process.
7. As such, for the reasons given above, the impugned order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Director of Education in quashed and it is directed that the State-respondents shall be liable to make payment of salary to teachers, including the petitioners, who were appointed against the posts of teachers duly approved for running additional classes. However, the same shall be done after the petitioners establish that they were duly appointed, in accordance with law, after following selection process.
8. It may be mentioned that even if the petitioners are unable to establish that proper procedure was followed at the time of giving them appointment in 1991, considering the fact that they are teaching for more than 15 years, hence even if the working of the petitioners was duly accepted and the certificate of the Committee of Management was duly counter-signed by the District Inspector of Schools on 1.4.2003 then the District Inspector of Schools may consider their appointment to be valid with effect from such date and grant payment of salary from 1.4.2003. The Director of Education is thus directed to take fresh decision with regard to payment of teachers for teaching additional approved classes within three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Director of Education. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file a detailed representation annexing therewith all the necessary documents in support of their cases. The District Inspector of Schools shall take a decision, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent No. 5 and other concerned parties, if there by any. Sri A.K. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 institution states that the institution shall give full cooperation and provide all such information which the Director of Education may require from time to time. In case if the Director of Education comes to the conclusion that the petitioners were validly appointed in the year 1991 or would be entitled to payment of salary from any subsequent date, the petitioners shall be paid salary alongwith arrears immediately thereafter.
9. According, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated as above. No order as to costs.