Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15202 of 2001 Petitioner :- C/M, Kisan Mazdoor Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- G.K.Singh,A.P.Sahi,Chandra Shekhar Rai,Dimlesh Rai,Sanjay Kumar Ray,V.K. Singh,Vikas Goswami,Vivek Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jaswant Rai
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking a mandamus for grant of salary. It has been alleged in the writ petition that 13 teachers were working when the institution was a Junior High School. The said institution was upgraded to the Higher Secondary School in year 1985 and from 1988, the institution was brought in grant- in-aid. It has further been alleged that 22 teachers, in addition to the 13 teachers, already working, were appointed by the Committee of Management, which was duly approved by the Joint Director of Education vide his order dated 10.5.1999 with effect from 01.12.1988 that is the date on which the institution came under grant-in-aid. It has been further stated that the salary was paid to all the teachers up to November 1989, subsequently. vide letter dated 16.9.2000, the State Government declared that all the appointments are illegal and also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Joint Director of Education solely on the ground that the approval dated 10.5.1999 was illegal. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the Joint Director of Education, the next incumbent, Joint Director, vide his order dated 25.9.2000, cancelled all the appointments and further directed for recovery of the salaries paid to the teachers pursuant to the sanction granted by the Joint Director, who was facing enquiry. The order dated 25.9.2000 came to be challenged by filing a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47668 of 2000 wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the writ petition vide order dated 02.11.2000 and quashed the order dated 25.9.2000 with a further direction to the petitioners to make a representation which was to be considered. It has been alleged that on 13.11.2000, a representation was made, which has not been decided till date. The enquiry initiated against the Joint Director came to be quashed on 28.2.2000. It has also been brought to the knowledge of the Court that on 28.3.2001, the Director issued notices under section 16 (D)(5) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and appointed authorized controller for a period of six months again on the same ground that illegal appointments have been made. The said order dated 28.3.2001 was again challenged by the Committee of Management by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15202 of 2001 wherein the order dated 28.3.2001 was stayed. The said order dated 28.3.2001 appointing authorised controller lost its significance, as the same was done only for a period of six months. Thereafter vide order dated 28.2.2002, the enquiry initiated against the Joint Director, on 16.9.2000, culminated into the exoneration of the Joint Director of Education and he was exonerated from all the charges levelled against him. It has further been brought to the knowledge of this Court that with regard to the proportionate number of teachers required based on the strength in any educational institution, an enquiry was conducted by the State Government and the State Government came to a conclusion in its report dated 28.5.2013, annexed as RA-2 that the number of teachers required in the institution of respondent no. 6, was 35. The State Government did not take any decision on the representation dated 13.11.2000 given pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 2.11.2000 passed in Writ C No. 47668 of 2000. However, in the counter affidavit, the State Government has taken stand that yet another enquiry was conducted by the State Government and the said enquiry gave a report on 7.2.2008, which is annexed as CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the State Government wherein the stand taken by the State Government is that the earlier 13 appointments were in accordance with law, however, with regard to the subsequent 22 appointments made by the Committee of Management, the section wise authorization was not taken and, therefore, the State Government is not liable to pay the salary. Specific query has been made by the Court to the Standing Counsel as to by which order, 13 teachers, which the State Government contends are validly appointed are being paid salary despite the State Government itself vide its order dated 25.9.2000 having cancelled, all the 35 appointments made.
Learned Standing Counsel seeks a week's time to obtain instructions to give a reply as to by what order, the 13 teachers, which the State Government contends, are the only validly appointed teachers, are being paid salary, whereas their appointments were also cancelled on 25.9.2000. The Standing Counsel further disputes that the 22 teachers are not working under any sanctioned posts from the State Government and the report dated 7.2.2008 showing that the 35 teachers are working only shows that 35 teachers working on account of some arrangement made by the Committee of Management.
The Court is prima facie of the view that the 22 teachers have been working since the date of appointment and despite being paid salary up to November 1999, are not being paid salaries from the period of 18 years. The Court is of the prima facie view that the stand taken by the State Government appears to be unreasonable, However, as a last opportunity, one week's time is granted to the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions and to inform the Court as to what under order, the 13 teachers are being paid salary despite their appointments have been cancelled on 25.5.2009.
List the matter on 14.12.2018 for further hearing.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Puspendra