Dhruv Narain Singh v. State of U.P. and others) issued the following directions, the operative portion on 07 Feb 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:- “i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P./Respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order for maintaining previously sanctioned strength of 20 Lecturers in the College (as per post creation order dated 29.12.1992 passed by the then Deputy Director of Education, Seventh Region, Gorakhpur). ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to issue necessary order sanctioning/creating 20 posts of Lecturers in the College in terms of the Government Order dated 15.06.2012 within the time to be specified by the Hon'ble Court. iii. To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv. To Award costs of the petition to the petitioners.”

3. The petitioner-Shibli National Inter College, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'College') is a recognised and aided 2 Intermediate College. According to the petitioner, the College is a Minority Institution, and is governed by the Provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1921') and the relevant Regulations framed thereunder as well as U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1971’) .

4. According to the case of the petitioner, the sanctioned strength in the College is 20 posts of Lecturers, 29 posts of Assistant Teachers in LT/CT Grade in the College, 01 post of Head Clerk, 04 posts of Assistant Clerk and 16 posts of 'Paricharak' (Class-IV Employee), total 71 posts. Subsequently, the post of Lecturer was reduced from 20 posts to 10 posts.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the College preferred Writ-A No.37561 of 2013 in which this Court by order dated

15.07.2013 directed the petitioner-College to represent their claim before the Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Government, Lucknow. Relevant extract of the order dated

15.07.2013 is reproduced herein below:- “Consequently, in the facts of the case, at this stage no interference is being made by this Court but proceeds to give liberty to the petitioners to represent their claim before the Secretary Secondary Education U.P. Government Lucknow. In case any such representation is moved, same shall be dealt with in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order passed by this Court.

With the above direction present writ petition is disposed of.” 3

6. It is stated in the writ petition that the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh by letter dated 10.02.2016 directed the Manager/Principal of the College to produce following documents:- “1. वेतन िवतरण अधिि቏िनयम 1971से आच्छादिदित होने काद शादसनाददिेश/पदि सृजन सम्बन्ि቏ी मूल अधिभिलेख की छादयादቚቱित याद ቚቱथम वेतन िबल की छादयादቚቱित l

2. िवगत पादंच वषर की छाद्ቔ संख्याद l

3. वतरमादन मे कादयररत स्टादफ स्टेटमेट l”

7. According to the petitioner, he has submitted the information required by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh by letter dated 10.02.2016 in time. When no decision was taken, the petitioner-College approached this Court by filing the present petition and prayed for the aforesaid relief.

8. The case of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that with regard to determination of sanctioned strength of aided Secondary Institutions, this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.05.2012 passed in Writ-A No.26307 of 2010 (Dhruv Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) issued the following directions, the operative portion of which is extracted herein below:- “The District Inspector of schools of each district shall be called upon to submit before the Chief Secretary or the officer designate for the purpose the details of posts institution-wise qua whom payment of salary is actually being made as on date alongwith records which may be available in the office of District Inspector of Schools in the matter of sanction of posts. At least this part of the work must be completed by 4 the State respondents on or before the next date fixed in the matter i.e. 09th July, 2012.”

9. It is further stated that in compliance with the order dated

22.05.2012 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.26307 of 2010, the State Government vide Government Order dated

15.06.2012 constituted a Committee headed by the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Prayagraj for the purpose of re-determination of Janshakti (sanctioned strength) of the aided Institutions with a direction to make verification of Institutions at District Level and submit report/recommendation by 30.06.2012. The Committee constituted by the State Government comprises the following:-

1. Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Chairman

2. Joint Director of Education (Arth) Member

3. Senior Finance & Accounts Officer Member

4. Deputy Director of Education (Secondary-2) Member

5. Deputy Director of Education (Secondary-3) Member

10. Further case of the respondents is that since the original posts creation order of the College was not available in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh or with the College, therefore, on the basis of first salary bill of teachers/ employees of the College after the College was brought within the purview of Act, 1971, the then District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh vide his letter/report dated 26.12.2012 made recommendations to the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Prayagraj for sanction of following posts in the College:- 5 Principal Lecturer 01 post 10 posts Assistant Teacher L.T./C.T. Grade 29 posts

5. Head Clerk Assistant Clerk

6. Class-IV 01 post 03 posts 16 posts _______________________ Total 60 posts

11. Further case in the counter affidavit is that the aforesaid report dated 26.12.2012 of the then District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh was forwarded by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow to the State Government for re-determination of Janshakti (sanctioned strength) of the of the College.

12. The State Government on the basis of the report/ recommendation received from the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow vide Government Order dated

29.05.2013 re-determined the Janshakti (sanctioned strength) of of the College in question as follows:

5. Principal Lecturer 01 post 10 posts Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade 29 posts Head Clerk Assistant Clerk

6. Paricharak (Class-IV post) 01 post 03 posts 16 posts _______________________ Total 60 posts

13. The further case of the respondents is that the then District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh after re-determination of the Janshakti (sanctioned strength)of the College on 6

29.05.2013 and without verification of original records relating to the post creation order in the College vide his letter dated

23.10.2013 wrongly made following recommendation to the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Prayagraj for determination of Janshakti (sanctioned strength) of the College:-

5. Principal Lecturer 01 post 20 posts Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade 29 posts Head Clerk Assistant Clerk

6. Paricharak (Class-IV post) 01 post 04 posts 16 posts _______________________ Total 71 posts

14. It is further stated that the report/recommendation of the then District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh dated 23.10.2013 was without verification of original post creation order dated

29.12.1992, and after the determination of the Janshakti (sanctioned strength) by the State Government, the recommendation of the then District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh dated 23.10.2013 cannot be the basis for re- determination of Janshakti(sanctioned strength) of the College.

15. In the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that the documents required by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh by letter dated 10.02.2016 had been supplied in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh on 15.02.2016.

16. It is further stated that the sanctioned strength of the Lecturer in the College was 20 and reduction of sanctioned strength of the Lecturer in the College is not as per law and against the record. 7

17. It is contended by the learned counsel for he petitioner that there is an order dated 29.12.1992 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Seventh Region, Gorakhpur to the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh which shows that the sanctioned strength of the Lecturer in the College is 20 posts. It is further submitted that there was various reports namely, the letter dated 07.10.2013 issued by the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur stating that verification from dispatch register suggest that the sanction strength order dated 29.12.1992 had been issued from the office of Deputy Director of Education, Seventh Region, Gorakhpur.

18. He further submits that the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh submitted a report dated 23.10.2013 by placing reliance upon the report dated 09.05.2013 submitted by the College to the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and also the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur (appearing on page-61 of the paper book) on

07.10.2013 to the Director of Education (Secondary) that sanctioned strength in the College is as follows:-

5. Principal Lecturer 01 post 20 posts Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade 29 posts Head Clerk Assistant Clerk

6. Paricharak (Class-IV post) 01 post 04 posts 16 posts _______________________ Total 71 posts 8

19. It is submitted that the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh also vide letter dated 10.02.2016 has directed the Manager/Principal of the College to submit necessary documents referred in the said letter, which have been submitted by the College in time, and in such view of the fact, the reduction of post of Lecturer from 20 to 10 is illegal and arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents.

20. It is submitted that it is established from the order dated

29.12.1992, the authenticity of which is not disputed by the respondents that the sanctioned strength of the Lecturer in the College is 20 posts, therefore, reduction of 10 posts of Lecturer in the College cannot be sustained in law.

21. It is further submitted that it is evident from the order dated 29.12.1992 that the post has been sanctioned by the Deputy Director of Education under Section 9 of the Act, 1971, and since it has been done in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act, therefore, the reduction of sanctioned post of Lecturer in the College is illegal.

22. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would contend that there is delay and laches in filing the present writ petition, inasmuch as it is evident from the record that the sanctioned strength of the College was re-determined by the State Government by order dated 29.05.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.37561 of 2013 in which the petitioner was relegated to the State Government to represent his grievance. The petitioner, thereafter, did not espouse his cause and approached this Court in the year 2022 by filing the present writ petition on

09.03.2022, therefore, there was a delay of about 9 years in 9 filing the present writ petition. It is submitted that since, the writ petition does not involve recurring cause of action, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

23. It is submitted that in compliance of the order dated

22.05.2012 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.26307 of 2010, a Committee was constituted by the State Government by Government Order dated 15.06.2012 headed by the Additional Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Prayagraj for the purpose of re-determination of sanctioned strength of the post of Lecturer, and the Committee after verifying the record and after obtaining report/recommendation from the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Prayagraj vide order dated

29.05.2013 re-determined the sanctioned strength of the College. Accordingly, it is contended that once the State Government has re-determined the sanctioned strength by order dated 29.05.2013 after following the due procedure of law, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate from the record in the present writ petition that the sanctioned strength of Lecturer in the College was 20, therefore, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

24. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

25. According to the petitioner, the sanctioned strength of post of Lecturer in the College was 20, but consequent to recommendation/ order dated 26.12.2012 of the then District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, it was reduced on re- determination of post by the Government Order dated

29.05.2013 in compliance of the order passed in Writ-A 10 No.26307 of 2010. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.37561 of 2013, in which this Court relegated the petitioner to the State Government. The relevant extract of the order of Writ Petition No. 37561 of 2013 has been already quoted above. So, the petitioner was relegated to the State Government in the year 2013, and thereafter, the petitioner kept mum as he did not espouse his cause before the Court of law for about 9 years, and has approached this Court after 9 years by filing the present writ petition on 09.03.2022.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has tried to explain the delay by submitting that the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh by letter dated 10.02.2016 asked the petitioner to submit certain documents referred in the said letter, which have been submitted by the petitioner in time, and necessary averments in this regard has been made by the petitioner in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, a copy of receiving of the document by the District Inspector of Schools on 15.02.2016 is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the rejoinder affidavit, therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner was dormant about his cause, and in fact the petitioner was pursuing the matter.

27. This Court does not find merit in the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner for the reason that though certain information had been sought by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh by letter dated 10.02.2016, and according to the petitioner in compliance of said letter dated

10.02.2016, he had submitted the documents required by letter dated 10.02.2016 within time. There is no specific averment in 11 paragraph- 20 of the writ petition as to the date on which the petitioner had supplied the documents in response to the letter of District Inspector of Schools dated 10.02.2016. Even, the letter of receiving enclosed along with the rejoinder affidavit on page-25 though shows that documents had been received by somebody on 15.02.2016, but there is no stamp of the office of District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, nor the identity of the person is clear from the signatures who received it. The said document of receiving enclosed (appearing on page 25 of the rejoinder affidavit) cannot be considered for one more reason that the respondents did not get any opportunity to verify the said document and reply the same in the counter affidavit, inasmuch as the said document was not filed along with the present writ petition, and has been filed with the rejoinder affidavit.

28. In such view of the fact, it is hard to believe that the petitioner had submitted any response in reply to the letter dated 10.02.2016 of the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. Even otherwise, after the letter dated 10.02.2016 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, the petitioner became dormant for six years and has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 09.03.2022 without there being any explanation of delay in filing the present writ petition, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is an inordinate delay and laches in filing the present writ petition.

29. Now, coming to the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner that it is evident from the order dated 29.12.1992 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Seventh Region, 12 Gorakhpur and also from the report of the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur dated 07.10.2013 (appearing on page 61 of the paper-book), and the report of the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh dated 23.10.2013 that the College has sanctioned strength of 20 posts of Lecturer, which had been sanctioned by the Deputy Director of Education, Secondary under Section 9 of the the Act, 1971, and, therefore, any conclusion against the said report is arbitrary and against the record. This Court does not find any merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner for the reasons recorded below.

30. There is no case of the petitioner in the writ petition that earlier the College was brought under the Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, there was sanctioned strength of 10 posts of Lecturer in the College which was later on increased to 20 posts of Lecturer. The petitioner has failed to produce the original order dated

29.12.1992 which is the order sanctioning the strength of 20 posts of Lecturer in the College.

31. The record reflects that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in Writ-A No.26307 of 2010, an exercise was undertaken to re-visit the sanctioned strength in the Colleges, and in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Writ -A No.26307 of 2010, a Committee was constituted headed by the Additional Director of Education, Secondary, U.P. The Committee thereafter sought a report from the Director of Education, Secondary, and based on the said report, the State Government vide Government Order dated 29.05.2013 re- determined the sanctioned strength of the Lecturer in the 13 College, besides the other posts. The report of the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Mandal Gorakhpur dated

07.10.2013 reads as under: “ संयु्ሹ िनदिेशक (िश्ቌाद) गोरखपुर मण्डल गोरखपुर। सेवाद मे, संयु्ሹ िनदिेशक (िश्ቌाद) आजमगढ़ मण्डल आजमगढ़। प्ቔादंक िडस्पैच- 2013-14 िदिनादंक 07 अधक्टूबर 2013 िवषयः- िशबली ने० इ० कादलेज आजमगढ़ के पदि सृजन आदिेश प्ቔादंक माद०- 2/19597-601/92-93 िदिनादंक 29.12.1992 के सत्यादपन के सम्बन्ि቏ मे। महोदिय, उपयुर्ሹ िवषयक आप के प्ቔादंक 3708/2013-14 िदिनादंक 30 िसतम्बर 2013 के सन्दिभिर मे सूच्य है िक इस कादयादरलय के िडस्पैच पंिजकाद के अधनुसादर प्ቔादंक माद०-2/19597-601/92-93 िदिनादंक 29.12.1992 िजलाद िव्ቕादलय िनरी्ቌक आजमगढ़ को सम्बोिि቏त तथाद ቚቱबन्ि቏क/ ቚቱि቏ादनादचादयर िशबली नेशनल इण्टर कादलेज आजमगढ़ सिहत अधन्य को पृ्቗ादंिकत है, पदिों काद सृजन आदिेश िनगरत िकयाद गयाद है। भिवदिीय (िदिव्यकादन्त शुक्ल) संयु्ሹ िनदिेशक (िश्ቌाद) गोरखपुर मण्डल गोरखपुर। पृ० सं० िडस्पैच/534850/2013-14 तदि् िदिनादंक। ቚቱितिलिप िनम्नादंिकत को सूचनादथर ቚቱेिषत- 1- िजलाद िव्ቕादलय िनरी्ቌक आजमगढ़। 2- ቚቱबन्ि቏क िशबली ने० इण्टर कादलेज आजमगढ़। (िदिव्यकादन्त शुक्ल) संयु्ሹ िनदिेशक (िश्ቌाद) 14 गोरखपुर मण्डल गोरखपुर।"

32. The aforesaid report reflects that the Joint Director of Education has only verified the dispatch register dispatching the order dated 29.12.1992, but he did not see the original order to verify the correctness or genuineness of the order dated

29.12.1992. In such view of the fact, this Court is of the view that the report dated 07.10.2013 of the Joint Director of Education cannot be relied upon in the absence of any verification with regard to original order dated 29.12.1992 regarding the sanctioned strength of the posts of Lecturer. Consequently, the report of District Inspector of Schools dated

23.10.2013 cannot be relied upon for the reason that the said report is based upon the report of the Joint Director of Education dated 07.10.2013.

33. The specific case of the respondents is that since the original order dated 29.12.1992 was not available either with the College or in the record of the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, therefore, on the basis of the salary bill paid to the Lecturer after the College was brought under the Payment of Salaries Act, the sanctioned strength is determined, and the sanctioned strength of the post of Lecturer is 10.

34. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is not that earlier there was sanctioned strength of 10 posts of Lecturer in the College which was later on increased to 20 posts of Lecturers. There is no such pleading in the writ petition nor the petitioner has produced any relevant record demonstrating that the procedure contemplated under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 was followed by the Deputy Director of Education in issuing the order dated 29.12.1992. The question whether the photo-copy 15 of letter dated 29.12.1992 is the true copy of original order is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be determined by this Court in the absence of any document on record supporting the assertion of the petitioner regarding genuineness of the order dated 29.12.1992, therefore, this Court is of the view that the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted.

35. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 NS NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad