Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The dispute in this Special Appeal is about the post of the Head of the Institution, namely, Kisan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Itaili, Gazna Kudda, District Jaunpur which post is being claimed by the appellant Ajai Pratap Rai and respondent No. 3 Shri Krishna Dixit respectively. The judgment under appeal rejects the claim of the appellant as well as the respondent No. 3 and directs that the teacher next to the respondent No. 3 In seniority shall be handed over charge as the Head of the Institution till the respondent No. 3 is not cleared of the charges against him or till a permanent regular selection is made in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that the appellant and respondent No. 3 as well as the then District Basic Education Officer have Indulged in certain malpractices for which a direction has been issued to launch ciminal prosecution against them and other directions have been issued in respect of the connected writ petition pertaining to the management of the institution with which the present appellant is not concerned.

2. The facts of the case have already been set out in detail in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, are not being exhaustively reproduced. However, bare minimum facts which are necessary for adjudication of the controversy are that the institution was initially a Junior High School recognized and governed by the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1972'). The said institution applied for recognition as a High School and was awarded the said status with effect from 25.01.1993. Further the Institution succeeded in promoting itself into an Intermediate College with effect from 16.01.1999 for which a recognition was granted under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1921'). On 30th June, 1999, the Head Master of the institution Shri H.P. Maurya attained the age of superannuation as a result whereof a vacancy occurred on the said post. The respondent No. 3 Shri Krishna Dixit is stated to have been handed over the charge as he was the next senior most teacher of the institution to function on the said post. The handing over charge was preceded by an alleged advertisement doted 06.06.1999 stated to have been issued by the then manager and it is alleged that the signatures of the respondent No. 3 were attested by the educational authorities on 13.07.1999. It appears that the respondent No. 3 was seeking a declaration of his status as Head Master of the institution for which he had approached the District Basic Education Officer. Having failed to receive any response from him, the respondent No. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 893 of 2000, which was disposed of on 11.01.2000 with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer to decide the representation of the respondent No. 3 in respect of his claim to the post of Head Master. From the records, it appears that in December 2002/January 2003, the Basic Education officer attested the signatures of respondent No. 3.

3. In between, there appears to have been a dispute with regard to the 'management of the institution and one Raja Ram Vishwakarma claimed himself to be the Manager of the institution and a rival claim was set up by Subhash Chandra Yadav. Both these persons staked their claims and the dispute came to this Court in several writ petitions which have been referred to in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. For the purposes of this controversy, suffice would be to say that Shri Raja Ram Vishwakarma as a Manager claimed that he appointed the appellant Ajai Pratap Rai. The said alleged appointment of the appellant is stated to have been approved on 07.03.2003 by the District Basic Education Officer, which was challenged by the respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 14612 of 2003, which has given rise to the present Special Appeal. An order Of status quo was passed on 21st May, 2003, yet the salary has been disbursed by the District Basic Education Officer to the appellant. The District Inspector of Schools intervened and issued directions in favour of respondent No. 3 which was reviewed by him on 03.03.2006. The order dated 7th March, 2003 had been assailed by the respondent No. 3 and the order dated 03.03.2006 was again challenged by the respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 16925 of 2006, which has also been disposed by the same judgment of the learned Single Judge.

There is requirement of three years experience as teacher for being appointed as Headmaster of Junior High School under Rule 4(2)(c) of 1978 Rules. Large Scale manipulation appears to have been made. Ajai Pratap Rai in his affidavit dated 30.12.2003, has mentioned that he has worked as Assistant Teacher at Mahantha Ram Asrey Das Madhyamik Vidyalaya Madhuban Nagar, Laparey, Jaunpur since 01.07.1999 to June 2002 and said fact finds support from the certificate issued by the Principal of the college on 18.01.2003 and also from the attendance register of July 1999 to June 2002. Certificate dated 18.01.2003, certifying functioning of Sri Ajai Kumar Rai has been given by Manager Ram Daur Yadav. Sri Ram Daur Yadav, pursuant to letter written by petitioner has categorically informed that Sri Ajai Pratap Rai has never functioned in the institution and has never been appointed in the institution. Notarial Affidavit has also been given, by Sri Ram Daur Yadav, reiterating same statement of fact and further documents submitted in this regard be treated as forged. These documents have been filed as Annexure RA-2 and 3 to rejoinder affidavit filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16925 of 2006,copy of which has been served on Sri R.M. Vishwakarma, Advocate on 04.05.2006 and qua which no dispute has been raised. In attendance register which has been appended at various places, Sri Ajai Pratap Rai who claims himself to be Assistant Teacher has appended his signature below Class IV employee. In the data list (Annexure RA-I and RA-II of rejoinder affidavit dated 11.01.2004) maintained at Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office Varanasi, qua teachers of institution name of Sri Ajai Pratap Rai is conspicuously missing. All these circumstances mentioned above, prima facie speaks for itself, and until and unless there is nexus in between Manager, candidate and the District Basic Education Officer,such appointment is not at all feasible.