Heard Sri D.K.Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Madhav Shukla, learned Counsel for the private respondent and the Standing Counsel.
The Committee of Management of Sadar Patel Smarak Inter College, Larpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, [for brevity sake 'Committee of Management'] has preferred the instant writ petition questioning the correctness and validity of order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar, whereby petitioners have been directed to make available proposal for promotion of opposite party no.4, namely, Indrajeet Verma on the post of Lecturer (Hindi).
According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, there are six sanctioned posts of Lecturer in Sardar Patel Smarak Inter College [ in short as 'the Institution]. Out of these six posts of Lecturer, three posts fall under the promotion quota and other three are to be filled under the direct recruitment quota as provided in Rule 10 of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Rules 1998 [in short referred to as '1998 Rules']. Giving detail, it has been pointed out that two posts falling under direct recruitment quota are occupied by Sri Ram Ujagir Verma and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh as Lecturer (Sanskrit & English) whereas two posts falling under promotion quota are occupied by Sri Ramashankar Verma and Jiyalal Chaudhary as Lecturer (Economics) and Lecturer (Geography) respectively. Thus the two posts one under direct recruitment quota and other under promotion quota were lying vacant in the institution. It has also been pointed out that on account of sad demise of Sri Ram Ujagir Verma, one post of Lecturer (Hindi) under promotion quota fell vacant on 23.12.2011 (Academic Session 2011-12).
According to petitioners, not a single LT Grade Teacher of the institution was eligible to be considered for promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) as minimum qualification is M.A. (Hindi) and B.A. with Sanskrit or Shastriya examination from Government Sanskrit College, Varanasi ( now Sampoornanad University, Varanasi) as prescribed in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. It has been pointed out that the qualification of Sri Indrajeet Verma, opposite party no. 4 is M.A. (Hindi) and B.Sc. and he had passed examination in one subject i.e. Sanskrit in the year 2003 from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Awadh University, Faizabad, without obtaining permission of Management. One Shri Harilal, an SC candidate, working in the institution is eligible to be considered for promotion on the post of Lecturer (civics) but the post of Lecturer (civics) has not been notified by the Service Selection Board as per information dated 11.9.2012.
It is in these circumstances that Committee of Management of the institution requested the Joint Director, Secondary Education, Faizabad Region, Faizabad (opposite party no. 2) for sending amended requisition to the Service Selection Board to fill the post of Lecturer (Hindi) by direct recruitment under general category and to fill the post of lecturer (civics) through promotion vide its letter dated 27.09.2012 enclosing therewith the copy of amended requisition. In turn, the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar Vide his letter dated 12.10.2012 forwarded the amended requisition to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad for necessary action.
Meanwhile, Shri Indrajeet Verma (opposite party no.4) having qualification B.Sc., M.A. (Hindi) and B.A. in Sanskrit working in the institution as Assistant Teacher, L.T. grade w.e.f. 02.03.1998, preferred a writ petition No. 7262 (S/S) of 2012, claiming his promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and also questioned the veracity of aforesaid amended requisition sent by the Institution. This Court while entertaining the writ petition stayed the operation and implementation of requisitions dated 12.10.2012 as well as 27.09.2012.
It may be pointed out that prior to filing of writ petition by Shri Indrajeet Verma (opposite party no.4) Shri Harilal, referred to above, had filed a writ petition no. 6479 (S/S) of 2012 claiming promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) which was disposed of vide order dated 4.10.2012 with the direction to DIOS,Ambedkar- Nagar to decide representation. Said Shri Harilal filed another writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 6479 (SS) of 2012 claiming promotion on the post of Lecturer (Civics) in view of amended requisition. This writ petition was also disposed of with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2012.
It seems from the record that pursuant to the aforesaid orders of this Court, the Manager/Principal of the institution on being called submitted a report before the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar, indicating therein that prescribed essential qualification for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) is M.A. in Hindi and B.A. with Sanskrit or Shashtri examination Government Sanskrit College, Varanasi now Sampurnanand University, Varanasi, whereas Shri Indrajeet Verma (opposite party no.4) is M.A. in Hindi and B.Sc. and had passed B.A. examination in one subject i.e.Sanskrit in the year 2003 from the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Awadh University, Faizabad without permission of the management.
According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar, in an arbitrary manner; without application of mind; and also without taking into consideration the qualification as prescribed in the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 read with the rules and regulations framed there under passed the impugned order. It has also been contended that without any justification vide impugned order dated 15.3.2013 District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar cancelled/revoked amended requisition dated 27.09.2011 and order dated 12.10.2012 sent by the Committee of Management.
Lastly, it has been argued that Under the U.P. Intermediate Act read with the Rules and Regulations framed there under as well as under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act 1982 and U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules-1998 there is no provision which authorizes the District Inspector of Schools to recall or review his order.
To give strength to his arguments, reliance has been placed on State of Gujarat and others Vs. Arvind Kumar T.Tiwari and another,(2012) 9 SCC 545; (2006) 2 SCC 670; S. Narayanaswami Vs. G. Panneerselvam and others;AIR 1972 SC 2284; Chet Ram Gangwar Versus State of U.P. And others; 2009(27) LCD 1383 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai; (2003) 5 SCC 590.
In the oppugation, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 4 in his counter affidavit has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the Committee of Management as the Committee of Management does not come within the purview of "aggrieved person".
According to him, it is well settled proposition of law that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by a person, who is aggrieved from an order or act of the State authorities or directly affected or suffers from legal injury. A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.3.2013 shows that if such an order or act of the State authorities is given effect to it does not infringe neither any fundamental right nor any legal right of the Committee of Management. The impugned order only decides the dispute of promotion between answering respondent and one Sri Hari Lal, who was claiming promotion to the post of Lecturer. In this situation, the present writ petition by the Committee of Management is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
As regards requisite qualification, It has been submitted that the answering respondent is fully eligible and qualified to be promoted to the post of Lecturer Hindi as would be evident from the impugned order. The private respondent possess the degree of Post Graduate (M.A.) in Hindi along with B.A. with Sanskrit, which is essential qualification for the post of Lecturer Hindi.
It has been argued on behalf of the answering respondent that opposite party no.4 completed his B.A. with Sanskrit subject from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University, Faizabad in the year 2003 with prior permission of the management of the college, which is evident from perusal of the impugned order itself. The aforesaid facts is also mentioned in the service book of the opposite party no. 4 maintained by the Instituion. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioners that he obtained degree without prior permission is wholly incorrect and misleading.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State while opposing the writ petition submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, which has been passed strictly in consonance with the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Act and Regulation framed there under together with the provisions of 1998 Rules.
U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Selection Board, Rules, 1998 deals with the procedure for recruitment of Principal and Teachers of an Institution. Rule 10 deals with the source of recruitment and Rule 10(b) prescribes that post of Teachers of Lecturer's grade shall be filled in 50 per cent by direct recruitment and 50 per cent by promotion from amongst substantively appointed teachers of the trained graduates grade.
Chapter II, Regulation I, Appendix A of the Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 lays down qualifications for appointment on the post of Lecturer Hindi to teach Classes XI and XII. Appendix A of Chapter 2 of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 prescribes that minimum qualification for Lecturer Hindi is M.A. in Hindi and B.A. with Sanskrit or Shastri Examination from Government Sanskrit College-Varanasi (now Sampurnanand Sanskrit University) Varanasi.
Chet Ram Gangwar vs.State of U.P. (supra) which has been relied upon by the petitioner's Counsel is entirely on different footing and cannot be applied in the present case as in the said case, the Committee of Management sent a proposal to the DIOS,Bareilly for promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) of a candidate, whose qualification was M.Sc. and M.A. in Hindi and had passed Sahitya Ratna Pariksha (Dwitiya Pathyakaram) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, under the promotional quota post. The said proposal was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not passed B.A. with Sanskrit as such he does not fulfill the requisite qualification for promotion whereas in the instant case, there is no quarrel to the fact that the petitioner has passed B.A.with Sanskrit as a subject. There is no bar that the person, who obtains BA degree in Sanskrit subject only (one subject) would not be considered and would be ineligible. The other cases, relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner, deal with rules of interpretation which has no relevancy in the present context.
It may be added that from perusal of the provisions contained in Rule 11(3) of the 1998 Rules, it comes out that the Management has every right to notify the vacancies to the Board which occurs after death or resignation of a regular teacher, but simultaneously this Rule does not provide any provision for notifying the vacancies to the Board which comes within promotion quota. Admittedly, the post of Lecturer Hindi falls within the purview of promotion quota, therefore, the said post cannot be filled in by direct recruitment. The approach of the Committee of Management smacks of arbitrariness especially when management maliciously wants to alter the vacancies for the purposes of providing undue advantages to some other teacher.
As regard the assertion of the petitioners that the DIOS has no power to review or recall its order, it may be clarified that the DIOS, Ambedkarnagar has not proceeded in the matter suo-motu but has passed the impugned order while deciding the representation for which a direction was issued to him by this Court in another writ petition, as referred to above. Therefore, the assertion of petitioners is wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted.
Lastly, I would like to mention that a "legal right" means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. To put it differently, it means a person, who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense In A.Subhash Babu vs. State of A.P. AIR 2011 SC 3031, the Apex Court held:-
"The expression ''aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant."
In view of the above settled position, it can easily be said that the Committee of the Management of the Institution cannot fall within the definition of 'aggrieved person' as far as present controversy is concerned. The impugned order dated 15.3.2013, is neither against the Committee of Management nor it affect any right of the Committee of Management but it deals with the eligiblity and prohibits conversion of post falling under promotion quota to direct recruitment quota.
For the reasons aforesaid, no good ground is made out for interference under discretionary writ jurisdiction and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Costs easy.
Order Date :- 5.2.2016 Arvind