Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10501 of 2015
Reserved on -15.11.2019 Delivered on – 29.11.2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Manju Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Dwivedi,Jitendra Kumar Srivastava,Sheikh Moazzam Inam,Umair Mahmood Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Babu Kesherwani Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs “(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the District Inspector of Schools-Iind Varanasi.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding/Directing the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner forthwith and go on paying the salary of the petitioner forthwith and go on paying the salary to the petitioner as and when it falls due ignoring the observation made in the approval order dated 24.07.2000 in view of judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 19.08.1999 in writ petition No.35414 of 1999 which was passed in similar circumstances.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding/Direction the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for which she is legally entitled in accordance with law alongwith arrears permissible under law, within a short stipulated period as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.”
2. From the perusal of the records it appear that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of filling Writ A No.38490 of 2002 ( Smt. Manju Tripathi & Anr. Versus Addl. Director of Education & others). In the said writ petition an order dated 18.11.2000, was under challenge, which had set aside the order dated 24.7.2000, whereby the approval of appointment to the petitioner on short term vacancy was granted earlier. The challenge to the order dated 18.11.2000, was on the ground that principles of natural justice were not followed. Accordingly, this Court vide order dated 14.3.2014 had quashed the order dated 18.11.2000 and the matter was remanded back to District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred as DIOS), with the direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the committee of management.
3. In pursuance of the abovementioned order, the DIOS considered the issue involved and after granting opportunity of hearing to petitioner, vide order dated 2.7.2014, declined to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the management had wrongly shown the substantive vacancies to be as a short term vacancies. The relevant part of the order dated 2.7.2014 is reproduced hereinafter;
मा0 उच्च न्यायालय के आदेशनुसार सुनवाई की ति4थि6 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा प्रस्4ु4 किकये गये क6न/अथिभलेख एवं काया)लय में उपबल्ध पत्रावली के परिरशीलनोंपरान्4 किनम्नव4् 4थ्य प्रकाश में आया-
1. याची श्रीम4ी मंजू कित्रपाठी की किनयकिु < श्रीम4ी किवन्दो कु मारी की 4द6) पदोन्नति4 काय)वाहक प्रधानाध्याकिपका के पद पर होने से रिर< अल्पकालिलका स 0 अ 0 एल 0 टी0 के पद पर प्रस्4ाकिव4 की गयी।
2. याची श्रीम4ी सरला पाण्डेय की किनयकिु < सी 0 टी0 वे4नक्रम में काय)र4 स 0 अ 0 श्रीम4ी उषा उपाध्याय प्रथिशतिक्ष4 स्ना4क वे4नक्रम में पदोन्नति4 के उपरान्4 रिर< सी 0 टी0 वे4नक्रम के पद पर प्रस्4ाकिव4 की गयी है जबकिक सी0 टी0 वे4नक्रम का पद वष) 1989 से ही शासन द्वारा मृ4 घोकिष4 किकया जा चुका है।
3. थिशक्षा किनदेशक, उ 0 प्र 0, थिशक्षा सामान्य-1 (4ृ4ीय) अनुभाग, इलाहाबाद के पत्रांक-सा0 (1)/4ृ4ीय/थिशकिवर/1679/95-96 किदनांक 09.06.1995 में स्पष्ट किकया गया है किक यकिद प्रबन्ध4न्त्र किकसी भी प्रकार की किनयकिु < कर4ा है 4ो वह किवतिधमान्य नहीं होगी। यह भी किनदWथिश4 किकया गया है किक किनयकिु < हे4ु पत्रजा4 प्राप्त कराये जा4े है 4ो उसपर अनमोदन कदाकिप न किदये जाये।
4. थिशक्षा किनदेशक उ 0 प्र 0, लखनऊ के पत्र किदनांक- 23.06.1997 द्वारा अतिधकिनयम की धारा-18 की उपधारा-8 के अधीन गकिठ4 चयन सकिमति4 के माध्यम से 4द6) किनयकिु < करने का प्राकिवधान प्राप्त है जिजसके अनुरुप एवं शासनादेश किदनांक- 06.06.1997 के अन्4ग)4 उत्तर प्रदेश माध्यकिमक थिशक्षा सेवा चयन आयोग अतिधकिनयम 1982 किनयम-8(8) में किनर्दिदष्ट चयन सकिमति4 के जिसफारिरश के आधार पर किवद्यालय में रिर< स 0 अ 0 के पदों पर 4द6) किनयकिु < की प्रकिक्रया सक्षम मण्डलीय अतिधकारिरयों के माध्यम से किकये जाने का प्राकिवधान है।
5. थिशक्षा किनदेशक उत्तर प्रदेश लखनऊ के पत्र किदनांक-13.08.1998 द्वारा स्पष्ट रुप से किनदWथिश4 है किक अशासकीय सहाय4ा प्राप्त माध्यकिमक किवद्यालयों में प्रबन्ध4न्त्र द्वारा अनातिधकृ 4 रुप से किनयकिु <यां की जा रही हैं जिजनका अनुमोदन अ6वा किवत्तीय सहमति4 न किकया जाय , अकिप4ु ऐसे प्रबन्ध4न्त्र के किवरुद्ध अतिधकिनयम के 4ह4 कठोर काय)वाही की जाये।
6. शासनादेश किदनांक-06.06.1997 के किवपरिर4 याचीगणों की प्रस्4ाकिव4 कथि64 किनयकिु < पूण)4या अवैधाकिनक अनातिधकार क्षेत्र के बाहर एवं किवभागीय किनयमों व किनदWशों व अतिधकार का उल्लंघन है।
7. किवद्यालय के प्रबन्धक द्वारा कु ल 6 अध्याकिपकाओं के मौलिलक रिरकि< का अतिधयाचन इस काया)लय में प्राप्त कराया गया जिजसे इस काया)लय के पत्रांक - मा0/856-56/2000-2001 किदमा0 उच्च न्यायालय के आदेशनुसार सुनवाई की ति4थि6 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा प्रस्4ु4 किकये गये क6न /अथिभलेख एवं काया)लय में उपबल्ध पत्रावली के परिरशीलनोंपरान्4 किनम्नव4् 4थ्य प्रकाश में आया-
1. याची श्रीम4ी मंजू कित्रपाठी की किनयकिु < श्रीम4ी किवन्दो कु मारी की 4द6) पदोन्नति4 काय)वाहक प्रधानाध्याकिपका के पद पर होने से रिर< अल्पकालिलका स 0 अ 0 एल 0 टी0 के पद पर प्रस्4ाकिव4 की गयी।नांक 12.09.2000 द्वारा संय< थिशक्षा किनदेशक वाराणसी व सतिचव माध्यकिमक थिशक्षा सवे ा चयन बोड) इलाहाबाद को प्रेकिष4 किकया गया, जिजससे स्पष्ट हो गया किक रिरकि< अल्पकालिलक नहीं बल्किल्क मौलिलक 6ी जिजस पर प्रबन्ध 4न्त्र द्वारा 4थ्यों को गल4 रुप से प्रस्4ु4 करके कपटपूण) 4रीके से किनयमों के किवपरी4 मौलिलक रिरकि< को अल्पकालिलक रिरकि< किदखाकर याचीगणों की किनयकिु < की गयी। उपरो< के अनुसार याचीगणों की प्रस्4ाकिव4 किनयकिु < प्रबन्ध4न्त्र के अतिधकार क्षेत्र के बाहर होने , थिशक्षा किनदेशक, इलाहाबाद के आदेश किदनांक- 09.06.1995, शासनादेश किदनांक-06.06.1997 एवं थिशक्षा किनदेशक लखनऊ के आदेश किदनांक-13.08.1998 के किवपरी4 होने की ल्किस्6ति4 में याचीगणों का वे4न भुग4ान किकया जाना किवतिधसम्म4 नहीं होगा।
4. The abovementioned order is impugned in the present writ petition. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court vide order dated 22.1.2000 has stayed the operation of the order dated 18.11.2000 and it was finally set aside vide order dated 14.3.2014, passed in writ petition No.2526 of 2001, and as such the petitioner was continued to work on the short term vacancy since 4.3.1998 (when his appointment was approved) and approval was granted on 24.7.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that short term vacancy was arose due to ad-hoc promotion of L.T. Grade teachers, there was no allegation that procedure was not followed by the management. Further submitted that the conclusion of the District Inspector of Schools was erroneous and therefore, liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent and submitted that committee of management had no authority or power to make any appointment against the substantive vacancy and further submitted that no short term vacancy was occurred in the institution, as no requisition was sent to the Selection Board through District Inspector of Schools for filling up the substantive vacancy by direct recruitment.
7. Considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the impugned order order dated 2.7.2014, it had specifically mentioned that the management of the College had forwarded the requisition for appointment on substantive vacancies, which was forwarded to the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Allahabad, on 12.9.2000. Therefore, it is clear that the said post was substantive and was not a short term vacancy. It was mentioned in the impugned order that the management had committed fraud with the authorities that these vacancies were not substantive but short term vacancies. It is settled law that ‘fraud vitiate every solemn acts’ (See: Sudhakar Pathak and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2009 (1) ADJ 589 (DB)).
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality on facts as well as on law in the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned order, therefore, this petition lacks merit. Hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 A. Dewal [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.]