High Court · 2025

2. The strength of teaching and non-teaching staff of the fourth- respondent Institution prepared and the proposals were not decided by the competent authority. The fourth-respondent Institution has approached this Court in Writ Petition No.22461 of 2016. Based on the directions the Director of Education has decided the strength of teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution by order dated 04.10.2016. According to the said orders, 1 posts of Principal, 6 posts of Lecturers, 31 posts of Assistant Teachers, 1 posts of Head Clerk, 3 posts of Clerks and 13 posts of Class-IV employees were sanctioned.

3. When two lecturer posts and six Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) were vacant in the Institution the Committee of Management has advertise the post of Lecturer (Urdu) along with four posts of L.T. Grade Teachers in daily newspaper on 14.10.2016. After that the Management had advertised a post of Lecturer along with two L.T. Grade Teachers on 20.11.2016 and accordingly, the fourth- respondent has constituted a selection committee and selected the petitioner to the post of Lecturer (Urdu) on the basis of quality point of marks and the said proposals were sent to the District Inspector of School, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 14.12.2016 for approval. But surprisingly the District Inspector of Schools sought some clarifications vide order 27.12.2016. The Committee of Management and also the petitioner have requested respondents to take an appropriate decision in the matter and also approach this Court by way of Writ Petition No.42342 of 2017 pursuant to the orders of this Court, the second respondents has passed order on 16.02.2018 by cancelling the selection of the petitioner on the ground that there is no existing vacancy/ posts in the Institution. The said orders were assailed before this Court in Writ A No.11735 of 2018. On instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel stating that there is one post of Lecturer to be filled in the Institution by direct recruitment. Taking that statement into consideration the writ petition was disposed of setting aside the order passed by the respondents dated 21.05.2018.

4. Consequent to the disposal of the said order the respondents have passed an order on 28.02.2019 on the ground that while initiating the process for selection the respondents have not issued advertisement in one newspaper. The said orders were assailed before this Court in Writ A No.4189 of 2019. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2019, which reads as below:- "Following order was passed in the matter on 14.3.2019:- "Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11735 of 2018, wherein following order was passed on 21.5.2018:- "Following order was passed in the matter on 14.5.2018:- "It is stated that the District Inspector of Schools has clearly admitted existence of one post of Lecturer in Urdu to be filled by direct recruitment and such finding has been reiterated by the Director also. Submission is that in such circumstances, direct recruitment on the post of Lecturer in Urdu ought not to be discarded and there is no justification for the Director to do so. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions from the concerned authorities of the State, by the next date. Put up as fresh on 21.5.2018." Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instruction from the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, which is taken on record. As per the instructions, it is clear that there is one post of Lecturer to be filled in the institution by direct recruitment. This fact has already been stated in the order impugned. In such circumstances, the claim of petitioner's appointment on the post of Lecturer by direct recruitment in Urdu ought to have been examined by the authorities by taking into consideration the aforesaid vacancy and the rejection of claim vide order impugned cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order dated 16.2.2018 stands quashed. A direction is issued to the authority concerned to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made above, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of." Consequential order has been passed by the Director rejecting claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because there were two distinct advertisements issued by the Institution in respect of different vacancies, the Director would be not justified in refusing to accord approval when no illegality otherwise is found in the selection itself. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions. Put up as fresh on 28.3.2019." Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which approval to appointment is not permissible in view of the fact that the vacancies were not advertised in a composite advertisement and that two separate advertisements were made. Although objection is taken to the appointment on the ground that a composite advertisement ought to have been made but no provision in law is shown which may require that different vacancies have to be clubbed together in one advertisement only. In the absence of any such provision it is always upon the managing committee to issue separate advertisements for separate vacancies. In case there exists vacancy and a fair procedure has been followed for appointment as is contemplated in law, the approval cannot be refused only on the ground that vacancies were separately advertised. The objection taken by the Director appears to be based on surmises and the order impugned has been passed without any proper application of mind to the provisions of law. The order impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed Director shall pass a fresh order within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him in respect of petitioner's claim keeping in view the observation made above."

5. Surprisingly, the respondents once again rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the Management has not issued the advertisement in one newspaper. The said orders were assailed before this Court in Writ- A No.8208 of 2019 and taking serious view, this Court has passed the following order on 21.05.2019:- "The petitioner claims that he was selected in a recruitment held for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Urdu in Muslim Jublee Girls Inter College, Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar. By order dated 11.02.2018, the Director of Education, Madhyamik decline to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that there was only one vacant post in the institution falling under direct recruitment quote whereas, the management had advertised two posts. The order was challenged before this Court in Writ A No. 11735 of 2018 and the same was disposed of by order dated 21.05.2018 as follows:- "Following order was passed in the matter on 14.5.2018:- "It is stated that the District Inspector of Schools has clearly admitted existence of one post of Lecturer in Urdu to be filled by direct recruitment and such finding has been reiterated by the Director also. Submission is that in such circumstances, direct recruitment on the post of Lecturer in Urdu ought not to be discarded and there is no justification for the Director to do so. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions from the concerned authorities of the State, by the next date. Put up as fresh on 21.5.2018." Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instruction from the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, which is taken on record. As per the instructions, it is clear that there is one post of Lecturer to be filled in the institution by direct recruitment. This fact has already been stated in the order impugned. In such circumstances, the claim of petitioner's appointment on the post of Lecturer by direct recruitment in Urdu ought to have been examined by the authorities by taking into consideration the aforesaid vacancy and the rejection of claim vide order impugned cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order dated 16.2.2018 stands quashed. A direction is issued to the authority concerned to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made above, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of." Thus in terms of above order, the claim of the petitioner was required to be reconsidered against vacant post of Lecturer Urdu. However, this time, the Director of Education by order dated 28.02.2019 refused to accord approval on the ground that two different advertisements were issued instead of one in respect of vacant posts in the institution. The said reasoning did not find favour with this Court while deciding Writ A No. 4189 of 2019 filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed by order dated 28.03.2019 by making following observations:- "Although objection is taken to the appointment on the ground that a composite advertisement ought to have been made but no provision in law is shown which may require that different vacancies have to be clubbed together in one advertisement only. In the absence of any such provision it is always upon the managing committee to issue separate advertisements for separate vacancies. In case there exists vacancy and a fair procedure has been followed for appointment as is contemplated in law, the approval cannot be refused only on the ground that vacancies were separately advertised. The objection taken by the Director appears to be based on surmises and the order impugned has been passed without any proper application of mind to the provisions of law. The order impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Director shall pass a fresh order within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him in respect of petitioner's claim keeping in view the observation made above." In terms of order dated 28.03.2019 passed by this Court, the Director of Education, Madhyamik has now passed order dated 7.05.2019 impugned herein. In the said order, the sole reason given for declining approval is that out of two vacant posts, only one post was falling under quota of direct recruitment, whereas, the management advertised two posts on different dates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said ground is no more open to be taken by the Director of Education, in view of the order of this Court dated 21.05.2018, wherein, this Court had directed the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Urdu, which at least was vacant and was falling under direct recruitment quota. Prima facie, the contention of the petitioner appears to have force. The impugned order is in the teeth of the previous order of this Court quoted above. Let the Director of Education, who is also arrayed in his personal capacity as respondent no.5, appear before this Court on 30th May 2019 to explain as to why he has passed the impugned order in complete ignorance of the previous order of this Court, and why the matter should not be recommended to the contempt court for initiating contempt proceeding against him for wilfully and deliberately flouting the previous order of this Court while passing the impugned order. List on 30th May 2019 as fresh. Learned Standing Counsel Sri Shivendra Singh has undertaken to communicate this order to the respondent no.2/5 to ensure its due compliance. As prayed by learned Standing Counsel, leave is granted to the said respondent to revisit the matter in the meantime."

6. In compliance to the said orders, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel based on instructions from the Director stated that the order dated 29.09.2018 has given effect and complied. Considering the said statement, the writ petition is disposed of.

7. Once again the respondents taking u-turn, passed the present impugned order on 09.12.2019 on the sole ground that there is no existing vacant posts in the Institution.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner extraneously argued that the respondents have forcefully taking the very same ground for rejecting the case of the petitioner. Initially, they have taken stand that there are no existing posts but this Court has set aside the said order on the instructions submitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vide order dated 21.05.2018. Subsequently the case of the petitioner has been rejected twice on the ground that the Management has not followed by advertising in a single newspaper, and those orders were also interdicted by this Court, the respondents has strangely taken the stand that there is no vacant posts contrary to the record. The said stand is not only contrary to the record but also contemptuous, as this Court has already held that one post of Lecturer is vacant to be filled by direct recruitment. As the petitioner was appointed to the said posts, hence, the respondents ought not to have taken the very same stand without assailing the orders made by this Court in Writ A No.11735 of 2018. But if at all the respondents have to take a firm stand that there is no existing vacant posts, the respondents ought to have assailed the said order in special appeal. Once the orders became final, the respondents are restrained from taking such stand again and again.

9. In reply to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the respondents have considered the students strength of the year 2017-18, 2018- 19, 2019-20 and there is no requirement of post of one Lecturer Urdu, hence they have rejected.

10. This submissions are very strange and the respondents ought not to take the consideration of the pupil teacher ratio without amending the sanctioned strength. If at all the respondents want to alter the sanctioned strength, first the respondents have to pass appropriate orders altering the strength and that amendment would only come prospectively. As the petitioner was appointed way back in 2016 and cannot be rejected based on the students strength in 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-2020. In view of the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 09.12.2019 is not only contrary to the observations made by this Court in Writ A No.11735 of 2018 but also contrary to the record and as well as contemptuous. As once the order of the Writ Petition No.11735 of 2018 have became final, the respondents ought not to have taken such plea again and again.

11. In view of the said circumstances, impugned order dated 09.12.2019 is set aside, directing the respondents to pass appropriate order, approving the appointment of the petitioner in the Institution, within a period of two months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order.

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. The strength of teaching and non-teaching staff of the fourth- respondent Institution prepared and the proposals were not decided by the competent authority. The fourth-respondent Institution has approached this Court in Writ Petition No.22461 of 2016. Based on the directions the Director of Education has decided the strength of teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution by order dated 04.10.2016. According to the said orders, 1 posts of Principal, 6 posts of Lecturers, 31 posts of Assistant Teachers, 1 posts of Head Clerk, 3 posts of Clerks and 13 posts of Class-IV employees were sanctioned.

3. When two lecturer posts and six Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) were vacant in the Institution the Committee of Management has advertise the post of Lecturer (Urdu) along with four posts of L.T. Grade Teachers in daily newspaper on 14.10.2016. After that the Management had advertised a post of Lecturer along with two L.T. Grade Teachers on 20.11.2016 and accordingly, the fourth- respondent has constituted a selection committee and selected the petitioner to the post of Lecturer (Urdu) on the basis of quality point of marks and the said proposals were sent to the District Inspector of School, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 14.12.2016 for approval. But surprisingly the District Inspector of Schools sought some clarifications vide order 27.12.2016. The Committee of Management and also the petitioner have requested respondents to take an appropriate decision in the matter and also approach this Court by way of Writ Petition No.42342 of 2017 pursuant to the orders of this Court, the second respondents has passed order on 16.02.2018 by cancelling the selection of the petitioner on the ground that there is no existing vacancy/ posts in the Institution. The said orders were assailed before this Court in Writ A No.11735 of 2018. On instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel stating that there is one post of Lecturer to be filled in the Institution by direct recruitment. Taking that statement into consideration the writ petition was disposed of setting aside the order passed by the respondents dated 21.05.2018.

4. Consequent to the disposal of the said order the respondents have passed an order on 28.02.2019 on the ground that while initiating the process for selection the respondents have not issued advertisement in one newspaper. The said orders were assailed before this Court in Writ A No.4189 of 2019. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2019, which reads as below:- "Following order was passed in the matter on 14.3.2019:- "Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11735 of 2018, wherein following order was passed on 21.5.2018:- "Following order was passed in the matter on 14.5.2018:- "It is stated that the District Inspector of Schools has clearly admitted existence of one post of Lecturer in Urdu to be filled by direct recruitment and such finding has been reiterated by the Director also. Submission is that in such circumstances, direct recruitment on the post of Lecturer in Urdu ought not to be discarded and there is no justification for the Director to do so. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions from the concerned authorities of the State, by the next date. Put up as fresh on 21.5.2018." Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instruction from the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, which is taken on record. As per the instructions, it is clear that there is one post of Lecturer to be filled in the institution by direct recruitment. This fact has already been stated in the order impugned. In such circumstances, the claim of petitioner's appointment on the post of Lecturer by direct recruitment in Urdu ought to have been examined by the authorities by taking into consideration the aforesaid vacancy and the rejection of claim vide order impugned cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order dated 16.2.2018 stands quashed. A direction is issued to the authority concerned to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made above, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of." Consequential order has been passed by the Director rejecting claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because there were two distinct advertisements issued by the Institution in respect of different vacancies, the Director would be not justified in refusing to accord approval when no illegality otherwise is found in the selection itself. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions. Put up as fresh on 28.3.2019." Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which approval to appointment is not permissible in view of the fact that the vacancies were not advertised in a composite advertisement and that two separate advertisements were made. Although objection is taken to the appointment on the ground that a composite advertisement ought to have been made but no provision in law is shown which may require that different vacancies have to be clubbed together in one advertisement only. In the absence of any such provision it is always upon the managing committee to issue separate advertisements for separate vacancies. In case there exists vacancy and a fair procedure has been followed for appointment as is contemplated in law, the approval cannot be refused only on the ground that vacancies were separately advertised. The objection taken by the Director appears to be based on surmises and the order impugned has been passed without any proper application of mind to the provisions of law. The order impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed Director shall pass a fresh order within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him in respect of petitioner's claim keeping in view the observation made above."

5. Surprisingly, the respondents once again rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the Management has not issued the advertisement in one newspaper. The said orders were assailed before this Court in Writ- A No.8208 of 2019 and taking serious view, this Court has passed the following order on 21.05.2019:- "The petitioner claims that he was selected in a recruitment held for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Urdu in Muslim Jublee Girls Inter College, Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar. By order dated 11.02.2018, the Director of Education, Madhyamik decline to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that there was only one vacant post in the institution falling under direct recruitment quote whereas, the management had advertised two posts. The order was challenged before this Court in Writ A No. 11735 of 2018 and the same was disposed of by order dated 21.05.2018 as follows:- "Following order was passed in the matter on 14.5.2018:- "It is stated that the District Inspector of Schools has clearly admitted existence of one post of Lecturer in Urdu to be filled by direct recruitment and such finding has been reiterated by the Director also. Submission is that in such circumstances, direct recruitment on the post of Lecturer in Urdu ought not to be discarded and there is no justification for the Director to do so. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions from the concerned authorities of the State, by the next date. Put up as fresh on 21.5.2018." Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instruction from the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, which is taken on record. As per the instructions, it is clear that there is one post of Lecturer to be filled in the institution by direct recruitment. This fact has already been stated in the order impugned. In such circumstances, the claim of petitioner's appointment on the post of Lecturer by direct recruitment in Urdu ought to have been examined by the authorities by taking into consideration the aforesaid vacancy and the rejection of claim vide order impugned cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order dated 16.2.2018 stands quashed. A direction is issued to the authority concerned to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made above, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of." Thus in terms of above order, the claim of the petitioner was required to be reconsidered against vacant post of Lecturer Urdu. However, this time, the Director of Education by order dated 28.02.2019 refused to accord approval on the ground that two different advertisements were issued instead of one in respect of vacant posts in the institution. The said reasoning did not find favour with this Court while deciding Writ A No. 4189 of 2019 filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed by order dated 28.03.2019 by making following observations:- "Although objection is taken to the appointment on the ground that a composite advertisement ought to have been made but no provision in law is shown which may require that different vacancies have to be clubbed together in one advertisement only. In the absence of any such provision it is always upon the managing committee to issue separate advertisements for separate vacancies. In case there exists vacancy and a fair procedure has been followed for appointment as is contemplated in law, the approval cannot be refused only on the ground that vacancies were separately advertised. The objection taken by the Director appears to be based on surmises and the order impugned has been passed without any proper application of mind to the provisions of law. The order impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Director shall pass a fresh order within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him in respect of petitioner's claim keeping in view the observation made above." In terms of order dated 28.03.2019 passed by this Court, the Director of Education, Madhyamik has now passed order dated 7.05.2019 impugned herein. In the said order, the sole reason given for declining approval is that out of two vacant posts, only one post was falling under quota of direct recruitment, whereas, the management advertised two posts on different dates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said ground is no more open to be taken by the Director of Education, in view of the order of this Court dated 21.05.2018, wherein, this Court had directed the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Urdu, which at least was vacant and was falling under direct recruitment quota. Prima facie, the contention of the petitioner appears to have force. The impugned order is in the teeth of the previous order of this Court quoted above. Let the Director of Education, who is also arrayed in his personal capacity as respondent no.5, appear before this Court on 30th May 2019 to explain as to why he has passed the impugned order in complete ignorance of the previous order of this Court, and why the matter should not be recommended to the contempt court for initiating contempt proceeding against him for wilfully and deliberately flouting the previous order of this Court while passing the impugned order. List on 30th May 2019 as fresh. Learned Standing Counsel Sri Shivendra Singh has undertaken to communicate this order to the respondent no.2/5 to ensure its due compliance. As prayed by learned Standing Counsel, leave is granted to the said respondent to revisit the matter in the meantime."

6. In compliance to the said orders, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel based on instructions from the Director stated that the order dated 29.09.2018 has given effect and complied. Considering the said statement, the writ petition is disposed of.

7. Once again the respondents taking u-turn, passed the present impugned order on 09.12.2019 on the sole ground that there is no existing vacant posts in the Institution.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner extraneously argued that the respondents have forcefully taking the very same ground for rejecting the case of the petitioner. Initially, they have taken stand that there are no existing posts but this Court has set aside the said order on the instructions submitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vide order dated 21.05.2018. Subsequently the case of the petitioner has been rejected twice on the ground that the Management has not followed by advertising in a single newspaper, and those orders were also interdicted by this Court, the respondents has strangely taken the stand that there is no vacant posts contrary to the record. The said stand is not only contrary to the record but also contemptuous, as this Court has already held that one post of Lecturer is vacant to be filled by direct recruitment. As the petitioner was appointed to the said posts, hence, the respondents ought not to have taken the very same stand without assailing the orders made by this Court in Writ A No.11735 of 2018. But if at all the respondents have to take a firm stand that there is no existing vacant posts, the respondents ought to have assailed the said order in special appeal. Once the orders became final, the respondents are restrained from taking such stand again and again.

9. In reply to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the respondents have considered the students strength of the year 2017-18, 2018- 19, 2019-20 and there is no requirement of post of one Lecturer Urdu, hence they have rejected.

10. This submissions are very strange and the respondents ought not to take the consideration of the pupil teacher ratio without amending the sanctioned strength. If at all the respondents want to alter the sanctioned strength, first the respondents have to pass appropriate orders altering the strength and that amendment would only come prospectively. As the petitioner was appointed way back in 2016 and cannot be rejected based on the students strength in 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-2020. In view of the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 09.12.2019 is not only contrary to the observations made by this Court in Writ A No.11735 of 2018 but also contrary to the record and as well as contemptuous. As once the order of the Writ Petition No.11735 of 2018 have became final, the respondents ought not to have taken such plea again and again.

11. In view of the said circumstances, impugned order dated 09.12.2019 is set aside, directing the respondents to pass appropriate order, approving the appointment of the petitioner in the Institution, within a period of two months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order.

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad