Court No. - 4
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 293 of 2013 Appellant :- The District Inspector Of Schools Allahabad And Others Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- M.S.Pipersenia S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Bahadur,Anoop Mishra
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned standing counsel for the appellant, Sri Rakesh Bahadur for respondent no.1 and Sri Anoop Mishra for respondent no.2.
This special appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 31.5.2012, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.48448 of 2008 by which he has allowed the aforesaid writ petition.
The facts of case are briefly stated herein below:
The petitioner was permanently appointed in the C.T. Grade for teaching Junior High School sections in Adarsh Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Malihan, Phoolpur, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as institution on 1.7.1976. At the time of his appointment he was Intermediate pass. The institution was granted permanent recognition as Junior High School w.e.f. 1.7.1978 by the Deputy Director of Education, Region-IV, Allahabad. Thereafter, it was upgraded to High School level in terms of Section 7A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as an "Act") and granted permanent recognition by Additional Secretary, Secondary Education Board by his letter dated 24.12.1980. The petitioner in the meantime also passed M.A. and B.Ed. examinations and claimed himself to be entitled to be appointed as a teacher in L.T.Grade in terms of G.O. dated 3.9.1986 upon issuance whereof C.T.Grade was declared a dying cadre.
It appears that the petitioner's salary was not paid, which compelled him to file Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.27713 of 1993 along with two others, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.6.1993 whereby a direction was given to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the petitioner's representation after affording opportunity of hearing to him and the Committee of Management of the institution.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad reconsidered the matter and passed a fresh order on 3.8.1993, copy whereof have been brought on record as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. With regard to the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 3.8.1993 recorded a finding that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) in the institution by the Committee of Management on 1.7.1976 and he had passed M.A. in Sanskrit and B.Ed. examination in the years 1982 and 1985 respectively.
However, the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 3.8.1993 rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary by referring to a letter of Basic Education Officer dated 19.12.1980 in which it was stated that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the list dated 11.11.1980 of teachers which was forwarded by the Principal/Manager of the institution to the Basic Education Officer. The order dated 3.8.1993 was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.894 of 1995. This Court after considering the entire facts and perusing the original record, which were produced before the Court held as under:
"The impugned order records that only those teachers were paid salary under the Payment of Salary Act, 1971 whose name was in approved list sent by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 19.12.1980 and the reason given for rejecting the petitioner's claim is that his name was not there in the so called letter dated 19.12.1980. The record of the case was summoned and examined. the letter dated 19.12.1980 is nowhere on the record at all.....
In view of the fact that a factual controversy has developed during the hearing of this case and for the first time the respondents have come out with a new story that the letter dated 19.12.1980 is a forged letter. If, that is so, all those teachers approved by way of the letter dated 19.12.1980 were perhaps not approved at all, their approval also becomes doubtful. The matter, therefore, requires careful reconsideration. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the Director of Education, U.P. to look and enquire into the matter with regard to the claims of the petitioner for grant of salary with effect from 1.4.1991. he may look into the matter and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and all other concerned may also be given an opportunity of hearing before the respondent no.2 passes orders. The impugned order dated 3.8.1993 is, therefore, set aside."
Thus, this Court recorded a clear finding that the so called letter dated 19.12.1980 referred to in the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 3.8.1993, issued by the Basic Education Officer being not on the record was a forged document. On the contrary, in the list of the teachers dated 11.11.1980, which was forwarded by the Principal/Manager of the institution to the Basic Education Officer, the name of the petitioner was clearly mentioned.
Thus, on account of aforesaid, this Court by order dated 8.4.2008 allowed the Writ Petition No.894 of 1995 and quashed the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 3.8.2011 and remitted the matter again to the Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P., Allahabad with the direction to him to pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law and on the basis of the material on record.
Thereafter the Director of Education by his order dated 12.6.2008, which was impugned in Writ-A No.48448 of 2008, rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary solely on the ground that the petitioner was not a trained teacher, he did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed on the post of L.T.Grade teacher. Hence, he disapproved his appointment.
Upon perusal of the counter affidavit, which was filed on behalf of the respondents, we find that the facts of the case as averred in this writ petition were not disputed and it was admitted that the petitioner's name was mentioned in the list of teachers, dated 11.11.1980, working in the institution. The only objection to the grant of approval to the petitioner's appointment was that he did not possess the requisite qualification.
Learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments advanced before him by learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of law reports on the issue cited before him by learned counsel for the parties, by the impugned order dated 31.5.2012 allowed the writ petition and after quashing the impugned order dated 12.6.2008 directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to take steps for payment of salary to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before them.
The learned Single Judge held, that in view of the settled legal position, that an appointment made between 1971 and 1978 could not be disapproved merely on the ground that the concerned Assistant Teacher was merely Intermediate and was untrained and no approval was obtained by the District Basic Education Officer. In support of his conclusion, learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court reported in 1999 (3) UPLBEC 2379, Pati Ram Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others wherein this Court relying upon the provisions of G.O. dated 10.3.1971 has held that appointments prior 1978 did not require training as training was not an essential qualification and that an untrained teacher could be appointed between 1971-78. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in 1990 UPLBEC 351, Rikh Pal Singh vs. District Basic Education Board, Allahabad and held that 1978 Rules were not retrospective, and therefore, appointment of an untrained teacher prior to these Rules could not be held to be bad in law and that an untrained teacher could be appointed permanently between 1971 and 1978.
Learned Standing Counsel, who has appeared for the appellant, has failed to demonstrate despite advancing extensive argument, the view taken by the learned Single Judge suffers from legal infirmity or illegality. We also do not find any reason to take a view different from that taken by the learned Single Judge.
This appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
We have been informed by Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the petitioner has been paid his entire salary upto 31.12.2008, the date on which he superannuated. However, he has not been paid any amount towards his pension and other retiral benefit.
In view of the dismissal of this special appeal, it goes without saying that respondent will pay the pension, including the arrears and other retiral benefits to respondent no.1 within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 AKJ