Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61606 of 2017 Petitioner :- Chandan Kumar Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Nadeem Ahmad Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents no.1 & 2 and Sri Syed Nadeem Ahmad for respondents no.3 and 4.
The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the communication dated 24.4.2017 by which Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Mau, has raised doubts on the validity of appointments of certain Clerks in different Junior High Schools, including the petitioner herein. The petitioner was appointed on vacant post of Clerk in respondent no.5 institution on basis of recommendation of the Section Committee dated 30.3.2016. The District Basic Education Officer, respondent no.3 granted approval to the said appointment by order dated 31.3.2016. The petitioner was issued appointment order on 4.4.4016 and he started working since 9.4.2016. It seems that when the matter relating to payment of salary to the petitioner came up before the Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Mau, he was of the opinion that there was a ban on appointments on Class III posts in Junior High Schools. He has, therefore, sought clarification from District Basic Education Officer as to how he has granted approval and how salary could be paid to these persons.
The impugned communication refers to a Government Order dated 6.11.2015, whereby the ban imposed by Government Order dated 15.3.2012 upon appointments on the posts of teaching and non-teaching staff in various Junior High Schools was relaxed in respect of vacant posts of Headmasters and Assistant Teachers. The fourth respondent has concluded from the said Government Order that the ban in respect of non- teaching staff is thus still in operation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conclusion drawn by the fourth respondent from Government Order dated 6.11.2015 is wholly misplaced inasmuch as the ban placed by Government Order dated 15.3.2012 in respect of vacant posts of Headmasters, Assistant Teachers and non-teaching staff was lifted by Government Order dated 15.9.2014 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Government, as it was adversely affecting teaching in various institutions. He further submitted that another Government Order dated 30.12.2014 to the same effect was again issued by the Secretary, U.P. Government, addressed to Director of Education (Basic), Lucknow. He also urged that subsequently by a Circular letter dated 31.3.2015 Director of Education (Basic) required District Basic Education Officers in various districts to ensure that the vacant posts of Headmasters, Assistant Teachers and Clerks in various institutions are filled by 30.6.2015. It is urged that the view taken by respondent no.4 ignoring the communication dated 15.9.2014 and 30.12.2014 and Circular letter dated 31.3.2015 is wholly misplaced and not sustainable in law. In the alternative, he also submitted that once the District Basic Education Officer has granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner, respondent no.4 is not having any jurisdiction to withhold the salary of the petitioner.
A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.4 in which it is not denied that the petitioner was appointed against a substantive vacancy. However, he has again referred to Government Order dated 6.11.2015 in contending that the ban was lifted only in respect of vacant posts of Headmasters and Assistant Teachers. Although, a specific assertion has been made in paragraphs 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the writ petition about Government Orders dated 15.9.2014, 30.12.2014 and Circular letter of the Director of Education dated 31.3.2015 but no specific reply has been given thereto, except for reiterating that there was a ban in existence. No Government Order or Circular has been brought on record which may go to show that the directions issued by the State Government vide letters dated 15.9.2014 and 30.12.2014 were superseded or modified.
The Circular letter of the Director of Education dated 31.3.2015 specifically makes a mention to Government Order dated 30.12.2014 in issuing direction that all vacant posts of Headmasters, Assistant Teachers and Clerks in various Junior High Schools should be filled up by 30.6.2015.
Having regard to the Government orders dated 15.9.2014, 30.12.2014 and Circular letter of Director of Education dated 31.3.2015, this Court is unable to accept that there was any ban upon appointment on Class III posts in Junior High Schools. Apart from it, there also appears to be considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the District Basic Education Officer has accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioner, respondent no.4 was bound to release salary for the post in question.
Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 24.4.2017 issued by respondent no.4 in so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondent no.4 is directed to pay arrears of salary and current salary to the petitioner in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands allowed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 30.1.2019 SL