High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Syed Asghar Abid Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Lal Srivastava,Vinayak Varma Counsel for Respondent :- Mohammad Ali,Sunil Kr.Yadava. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Writ petition is filed for release of salary of the petitioner based on the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner dated 03.12.2007 and joining letter dated 05.12.2007.

2. Petitioner was appointed as L.T. Grade Teacher in the third respondent institution and there are substantive vacancies. The third respondent has initiated process for selection to fill up the post and issued notification advertisement in Swaraj Times, Agra and Times of India, New Delhi on 08.08.2007 (as per the amendment application) and based on the applications, the selection committee scheduled the interviews on 20.10.2007 and accordingly the selection committee has selected the petitioner and the committee of management has issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 03.12.2007. Pursuant to the said appointment letter, the petitioner has joined the duty on 05.12.2007 in the third respondent institution and from the said date onward the petitioner is imparting education to the students without any complaint. After the appointment letter, the third respondent has sent the proposal to the District Inspector of Schools. It is further undisputed fact that after the selections, the committee of management sent the proposal to the competent authority i.e. second respondent for approval vide letter dated 01.12.2007.

3. Pursuant to the said appointment thought the petitioner is discharging his duties and imparting education to the students but the respondents have neither passed any order nor release the salary, hence the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner mainly contended that the third respondent being a minority institution as per Section 16- 2 WRIA No. 53181 of 2010 FF of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921(hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The District Inspector of Schools has to pass an order approval of appointment of petitioner and the Section 16-FF of the Act clarifies after receipt of the proposal, the District Inspector of Schools based on the material has to pass an order either approval or disapproval. Further learned counsel also relied on the Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which stipulates mandatory time period of thirty days. After the receipt of the proposal from the committee of management as per Section 16-FF of the Act, the competent authority i.e. District Inspector of Schools has to pass an order either approval of appointment or disapproval within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a proposal according to Regulation 17(g), if the competent authority fails to pass any order it is to be construed as a deemed approval, hence in the instant case immediately after selections, the committee of management has forwarded the proposal to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 01.12.2007 and the third respondent has to pass order as per Regulation 17(g), either granting approval or disapproval within a period of thirty days by 01.01.2008, suppose the third respondent has failed to pass an order under Section 16-FF of the Act on or before 01.01.2008 it is construed that the approval is deemed, hence the respondents has to release the salary to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment.

5. After noticing respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavits. According to the averments in the above counter affidavits, learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions that as per the averments made in paragraph no.10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, clearly discloses that the management issued letter on 10.10.2007 calling the petitioner for interview on 11.10.2007 and directing the petitioner to appear on 20.10.2007, hence the very appointment is vitiated as the management has created the documents with back dated. Further he has submitted that even on 28.03.2023, the District Inspector of Schools, Agra has got report from the management with respect to the appointments been made in the institution but in the notification issued on 07.11.2007 and 08.11.2007 the post of Assistant Teacher has not been mentioned. Further thought the petitioner has after filing the counter affidavit, he has filed an amendment application and brought the amendment with regard to the notification of the posts dated 08.08.2007 (the same has been mentioned in the amended paragraph no.8), hence the appointments which were made by the third 3 WRIA No. 53181 of 2010 respondent institution is void, hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this petition. including the correct date of advertisement

6. Reply to the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by mistakenly the dates of advertisements were wrongly mentioned in the original writ petition but subsequently dates were corrected by i.e. 08.08.2007. Though the date is wrongly mentioned, the fact remains the said posts were advertised and consequently the petitioner has appeared before the selection committee and his selection was made as per rules and the committee of management sent proposal to the second respondent in compliance to Section 16-FF of the Act on 01.12.2007, receipt of the said proposals were not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Once the receipt of proposals from the committee of management in compliance to the Section 16-FF of the Act the respondents has to pass an order within thirty days as per Regulation 17(g) that means they should have passed the order either rejecting or approving on or before 01.08.2008. The respondents have also not denied the said contention or not replied in their counter affidavits with regard to the mandatory condition in the Regulation 17(g).

7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and perusal of the record though there is specific averments made in the writ petition pertaining to Section 16-FF of the Act and Regulation 17(g), the counter affidavit is silent about this aspect. Apart from that there is no denial with regard to the receipt of the proposal from the third respondent. The said circumstances as this issue was already decide by catena of judgements by this Hon'ble Court, once the respondents have not passed any order as mandate under the Regulation 17(g), the appointment which was made in favour of the petitioner on 03.12.2007 has to be construed as deemed approval. Once that being the legal position the respondents ought to have release the salary to the petitioner from the date of initial appointment.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the mandamus directing the respondents to release the salary to the petitioner considering the appointment dated 03.12.2007 as per Regulation 17(g). The salary and arrears of the petitioner shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 I.A.Siddiqui 4 WRIA No. 53181 of 2010 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Syed Asghar Abid Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Lal Srivastava,Vinayak Varma Counsel for Respondent :- Mohammad Ali,Sunil Kr.Yadava. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Writ petition is filed for release of salary of the petitioner based on the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner dated 03.12.2007 and joining letter dated 05.12.2007.

2. Petitioner was appointed as L.T. Grade Teacher in the third respondent institution and there are substantive vacancies. The third respondent has initiated process for selection to fill up the post and issued notification advertisement in Swaraj Times, Agra and Times of India, New Delhi on 08.08.2007 (as per the amendment application) and based on the applications, the selection committee scheduled the interviews on 20.10.2007 and accordingly the selection committee has selected the petitioner and the committee of management has issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 03.12.2007. Pursuant to the said appointment letter, the petitioner has joined the duty on 05.12.2007 in the third respondent institution and from the said date onward the petitioner is imparting education to the students without any complaint. After the appointment letter, the third respondent has sent the proposal to the District Inspector of Schools. It is further undisputed fact that after the selections, the committee of management sent the proposal to the competent authority i.e. second respondent for approval vide letter dated 01.12.2007.

3. Pursuant to the said appointment thought the petitioner is discharging his duties and imparting education to the students but the respondents have neither passed any order nor release the salary, hence the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner mainly contended that the third respondent being a minority institution as per Section 16- 2 WRIA No. 53181 of 2010 FF of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921(hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The District Inspector of Schools has to pass an order approval of appointment of petitioner and the Section 16-FF of the Act clarifies after receipt of the proposal, the District Inspector of Schools based on the material has to pass an order either approval or disapproval. Further learned counsel also relied on the Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which stipulates mandatory time period of thirty days. After the receipt of the proposal from the committee of management as per Section 16-FF of the Act, the competent authority i.e. District Inspector of Schools has to pass an order either approval of appointment or disapproval within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a proposal according to Regulation 17(g), if the competent authority fails to pass any order it is to be construed as a deemed approval, hence in the instant case immediately after selections, the committee of management has forwarded the proposal to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 01.12.2007 and the third respondent has to pass order as per Regulation 17(g), either granting approval or disapproval within a period of thirty days by 01.01.2008, suppose the third respondent has failed to pass an order under Section 16-FF of the Act on or before 01.01.2008 it is construed that the approval is deemed, hence the respondents has to release the salary to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment.

5. After noticing respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavits. According to the averments in the above counter affidavits, learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions that as per the averments made in paragraph no.10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, clearly discloses that the management issued letter on 10.10.2007 calling the petitioner for interview on 11.10.2007 and directing the petitioner to appear on 20.10.2007, hence the very appointment is vitiated as the management has created the documents with back dated. Further he has submitted that even on 28.03.2023, the District Inspector of Schools, Agra has got report from the management with respect to the appointments been made in the institution but in the notification issued on 07.11.2007 and 08.11.2007 the post of Assistant Teacher has not been mentioned. Further thought the petitioner has after filing the counter affidavit, he has filed an amendment application and brought the amendment with regard to the notification of the posts dated 08.08.2007 (the same has been mentioned in the amended paragraph no.8), hence the appointments which were made by the third 3 WRIA No. 53181 of 2010 respondent institution is void, hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this petition. including the correct date of advertisement

6. Reply to the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by mistakenly the dates of advertisements were wrongly mentioned in the original writ petition but subsequently dates were corrected by i.e. 08.08.2007. Though the date is wrongly mentioned, the fact remains the said posts were advertised and consequently the petitioner has appeared before the selection committee and his selection was made as per rules and the committee of management sent proposal to the second respondent in compliance to Section 16-FF of the Act on 01.12.2007, receipt of the said proposals were not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Once the receipt of proposals from the committee of management in compliance to the Section 16-FF of the Act the respondents has to pass an order within thirty days as per Regulation 17(g) that means they should have passed the order either rejecting or approving on or before 01.08.2008. The respondents have also not denied the said contention or not replied in their counter affidavits with regard to the mandatory condition in the Regulation 17(g).

7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and perusal of the record though there is specific averments made in the writ petition pertaining to Section 16-FF of the Act and Regulation 17(g), the counter affidavit is silent about this aspect. Apart from that there is no denial with regard to the receipt of the proposal from the third respondent. The said circumstances as this issue was already decide by catena of judgements by this Hon'ble Court, once the respondents have not passed any order as mandate under the Regulation 17(g), the appointment which was made in favour of the petitioner on 03.12.2007 has to be construed as deemed approval. Once that being the legal position the respondents ought to have release the salary to the petitioner from the date of initial appointment.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the mandamus directing the respondents to release the salary to the petitioner considering the appointment dated 03.12.2007 as per Regulation 17(g). The salary and arrears of the petitioner shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 I.A.Siddiqui 4 WRIA No. 53181 of 2010 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad