Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1963 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Singh,G.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Although respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are duly represented none has appeared on their behalf even in the revised call. The petitioner claims to have been appointed by the Management of Sri Ram Janki Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya as an Assistant Teacher sometime in 2001. The institution thereafter appears to have applied for being included on the grant-in-aid list of the State. The State accorded it the facility of being paid a grant by its order of 4 January 2005. It is at that time and since pursuant to the institution being taken on the grant-in-aid list, the liability of payment of salary shifted to the State respondents that various appointments made by the Management fell for scrutiny. A dispute with respect to the legality of the appointment of the petitioner is also stated to have arisen. By the impugned order, the Director of Education (Secondary) has come to hold that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal since it was not established before him that the appointment had been made after the constitution of a Selection Committee and due approval to the resolution taken by the management.
According to Sri H.P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner at the time when the petitioner was appointed in 2001, the authority to make appointment in Sanskrit institutions vested solely in the Management concerned. Sri Sahi has also highlighted the fact that at the relevant time, the institution was admittedly not in receipt of any aid from the State Government. According to Sri Sahi, the statutory provisions envisaging scrutiny of appointments made by the private Management of a Sanskrit institution and the approval to such appointments would spring into play only once the institution comes to be taken on the grant in aid list as a consequence of which the liability to pay salary shifts to the State Government. In his submission, the institution in question was taken on the grant-in aid-list in 2005 whereas the petitioner came to be appointed in 2001.
Although learned Standing Counsel has sought to support the order impugned, the principal submission of Sri Sahi with respect to the absence of any statutory procedure governing the petitioner's appointment has remained unanswered.
Additionally it becomes relevant to note that although the Director of Education takes the view that no Selection Committee was constituted or approval accorded, the order impugned does not refer to any existing statutory regimen under which such a procedure was liable to be followed. The Court is further faced with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the services of the petitioner were brought to an end in terms of the order impugned, he still continues to work and is being paid by the Management. This aspect assumes significance since no interlocutory order operated in his favour.
However, since the impugned order clearly lacks the requisite reasoning, the same is rendered unsustainable.
Faced with this situation, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent stated that subject to verification of all facts and contentions on merits being left open, the claim of the petitioner with respect to him having been validly appointed in the institution concerned shall be re-evaluated with expedition and preferably within a period of three month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the third respondent shall proceed in the mater with due notice to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 . This petition is accordingly disposed of in light of the statement noted above. The impugned order shall abide by the fresh decision which the respondents shall now take.
This Court further clarifies that all contentions including that of the petitioner continuing to work in the Institution as also the liability of the State to bear the liability of salary or other emoluments are left open for the consideration of the third respondent.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 LA/-