Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 227 of 2019 Appellant :- Supriya Kesarwani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner appellant has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court against the order dated 12.11.2018, by which his writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was made under Section 16-E (11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and since it does not contemplate appointment on substantive posts no question for grant of any approval arise.
The submission of Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that Section 16-E (11) of the Act not only contemplates appointments on temporary vacancies by grant of leave but even on substantive vacancies arising due to death, termination or otherwise though the said appointments may be for a particular session not exceeding 11 months.
A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Special Appeal No. 215 of 2015 decided on 22.7.2015 has clearly laid down that the object of the above provision is to ensure the educational needs of the students and that their studies may not be disturbed due to vacancies arising in the academic session.The said provision stipulates that an appointment which is made thereunder shall in no case continue beyond the end of the educational session during which the appointment is made.
Following the aforesaid decision, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2017 passed in Writ A No. 48244 of 2017 (Sushil Kumar Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P., and Others) held that the Committee of Management of the institution have the power and authority to make appointment under Sub-section 11 of Sub-section 16-E of the Act for a period not exceeding 11 months and the salary of such teachers shall be borne by the State, if the institution is receiving grant in aid. Therefore, the DIOS is obliged to consider grant of approval to the appointments made under the aforesaid provision for the purposes of their entitlement to salary but while granting the approval he shall record in the order that the appointment is under Section 16-E (11) of the Act and would not exceed 11 months of the academic session in question.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge manifestly erred in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner appellant at-least in respect of grant of approval/disapproval of his appointment on which the payment of salary of the petitioner appellant depends.
Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge and dispose of the matter with the direction to the DIOS, Kaushambi to consider the matter of appointment of the petitioner- appellant for the purposes of financial approval in accordance with law in the light of the above Full Bench decision most expeditiously, if possible, within a period of six weeks with the specific note that the approval, if any, is only for a period of 11 months of the academic session in question.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Abhilash