Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27737 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Sri Mahavir Vidhyalay And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
It is admitted between the counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgement rendered by this Court in Writ A No.2569 of 2019 (Committee of ManagementSeth Teerath Prasad Rameshwar And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others) decided on 18.2.2019. The order passed in Writ A No.2569 of 2019 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. Rajesh Khare, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.4.
The issue raised in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass.
It is an undisputed fact that the proceedings for selection for the post of principal commenced in the year 2017 and ultimately, culminated in the year 2018, i.e., on 06.12.2018, where-after, the proceedings of the Selection Committee were transmitted to the respondent no.4, the District Basic Education Officer, Chitrakoot vide letter dated 10.12.2018. Upon receipt of the aforesaid letter alongwith recommendation of the Selection Committee, an objection was raised by the respondent no. 4 that the papers relating to the educational qualification of the empanelled candidate has not been appended alongwith the same. This objection raised by the respondent no.4 was redressed vide letter dated 11.01.2019 sent by the petitioner no.1 appending alongwith the same the record pertaining to the Educational qualification of the empanelled candidates. It is at this juncture that the respondent no.4 has now passed an order dated 25.01.2019 whereby a request has been sent to the Director, Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow, respondent no.2, for seeking his guide lines in the matter as to whether the approval should be granted or a decision should be taken in the light of the Government Order dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). The Government Order dated 15.01.2019 stipulates that as per the policy decision taken by the State Government, the post of principal can be sanctioned only in such institution where the number of students exceeds hundred. The applicability of the Government Order dated 15.01.2019 to the selection proceedings to the institution is also disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that since the selection proceedings had commenced already in the year 2017 and came to an end on 06.12.2018, the Government Order dated 15.01.2019 shall not apply. It is further urged that old vacancies are governed by old rules and new vacancies are governed by new rules. Since, the policy decision formulated vide Government Order dated 15.01.2019 is prospective in nature, therefore, the same shall not apply with retrospective effect to the institution in question.
On the aforesaid factual premise, it is thus urged that the respondent no.4, the District Basic Education Officer, Chitrakoot, is liable to be directed by this Court to decide the issue regarding the grant of approval for the post of principal in question. Admittedly, the respondent no.4 has not taken any decision till date. The matter requires to be adjudicated by the respondent no.4 at the first instance.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. Rajesh Khare, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.4, this Court is of the considered view that in case a direction is issued to the respondent no.4, the District Basic Education Officer, Chitrakoot to decide the issue qua the grant of approval/applicability of the Government Order dated 15.01.2019.
Consequently, this writ petition stands finally disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.4 to take a decision on the aforesaid issues within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter."
In view of the same, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Basic Education Officer be directed to conclude the selection proceedings in question at an early date. Admittedly the matter is still pending consideration before the District Basic Education Officer.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter requires to be adjudicated by the District Basic Education Officer at the first instant.
Having heard to the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that direction be issued to the District Basic Education Officer to decide the issue in question, which is still pending consideration without taking into consideration the policy decision formulated by G.O. Dated 15.1.2019.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, to take a decision on the aforesaid issues in the light of the judgement delivered in the case of Committee of ManagementSeth Teerath Prasad Rameshwar (Supra) within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and it is for the authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Pramod Tripathi