Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P. And

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State- respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayers:- "(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to grant regular monthly salary to the petitioner for the post of Headmaster, Amar Guru Junior High School, Nawabganj, Kasganj. (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to grant arrears of salary to the petitioner for the post of Headmaster, Amar Guru Junior High School, Nawabganj, Kasganj w.e.f. 02.04.2016 till date with interest at a rate to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the present petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the month of March, 2016. Aggrieved against the aforesaid one Ranveer Singh filed a petition before this Court being Writ A No. 31800 of 2016 (Ranveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others). In which the following order was passed on 15.07.2016:- "The present petition has been filed challenging the appointment of the respondent no.4 in Amar Guru Junior High School, Nawabganj, Kasganj. The petitioner claims himself to be a Life Member of the Society which runs the said educational institution. It is the case of the petitioner that the service condition including the recruitment to the post of an Assistant Teacher as well as Headmaster in the Institution is governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act and the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978. It has been submitted that a post of Headmaster in the Institution fell vacant for which recruitment process was initiated and the respondent no.4 was selected and his appointment was approved by impugned order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Basic Education Officer, Kasganj even though the respondent no.4 did not hold the minimum qualification for the post of Head Master provided by Rule 4(2)(c) of Rules, 1978, which provides that a candidate must have five years teaching experience in a recognized school. It has been submitted that Rule 2 (h) of the Rules, 1978 provides that a recognized school means any junior High School not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body recognized by the Board as such. It has been submitted that Board as per Rule 2(c) of Rules, 1978 means the U.P. Board of Basic Education constituted under section 3 of the Act, accordingly, from the provisions of Rule 4(2)(c) of the Rules, 1978 read with Rule 2 (c) and Rule 2 (h) it is clear that the teaching experience must be in an institution which is recognized by the Board and, therefore, teaching experience in any other institution would not enure to the benefit of the candidate. It has been submitted that the respondent no.4 has submitted teaching experience certificate obtained from Arcadian Public School (Senior Secondary) which is affiliated to CBSE New Delhi Board but it is not recognized by U.P. Basic Education Board as is the mandate of Rules, 1978 and, therefore, the experience certificate could not have been utilized by the respondent no.4 to gain qualification for appointment. Attention of the Court has been invited to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.350 of 2016 in which by relying on earlier decisions of this Court in Arun Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (1) ALJ 467 and Tasneem Fatima Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (11) ADJ 428, it was held that the teaching experience required for appointment on the post of Headmaster in an Institution governed by the 1978 Rules must be from a recognized school which is duly recognized by the Board of Basic Education. Attention of the Court has also been invited to an interim order dated 29.02.2016 passed in Writ-A No.9296 of 2016 in which similar view has been taken and experience certificate of a candidate obtained from an institution recognized by the CBSE Board was not found in order and, therefore, an interim order was granted. Further to substantiate his locus, the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No.266 of 2015 so as to contend that where salary is to be drawn from public fund, then the question of locus loses its importance once it is brought to the notice of the Court that an illegal appointment has been made. The matter requires consideration. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. Sri S.K. Chaudhary has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no2. Issue notice to the respondent nos.3 and 4 returnable by 30.08.2016. List this petition on 30.08.2016. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the contention that the respondent no.4 does not possess essential qualification for being appointed on the post of Headmaster of the Institution concerned it is hereby provided that the said respondent shall not be paid salary without the leave of the Court, till the next date of listing. "

4. It is argued that though the petitioner was working regularly from the date of his joining but in view of the order passed by this Court on 15.07.2016 the salary was not paid to the petitioner. Ultimately the aforesaid petition was dismissed and interim order dated 15.07.2016 was vacated vide order dated 27.02.2024, which is quoted herein below:- "Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. This writ petition was filed by one Ranveer Singh, to be a life member of concerned Committee. This Court has passed an interim order that no salary will be granted to respondent no. 4 without leave of the Court. It is not under dispute that during pendency of this writ petition, petitioner Ranveer Singh, died on 24.08.2023. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an impleadment application has been filed by one Ram Niwas, declaring himself to be a life member, however, he fairly submits that contents of application are not happily worded. Learned counsel for respondent submits that there is an application for abatement and since cause of action does not survive at the instance of applicant, therefore this writ petition may be dismissed. In the aforesaid circumstances, since original petitioner has died and application filed by applicant for impleadment is defective, therefore, I do not find any reason to keep pending this writ petition. Accordingly, interim order is vacated and writ petition is disposed of with an observation that Committee of Management or member of it, if still so aggrieved, will be at liberty to approach concerned authority or avail any other legal recourse. There is a dispute about eligibility of respondent no. 4, therefore, the Committee of Management is under legal obligation to verify it. "

5. After the aforesaid order was passed, representations were made by the petitioner before Respondent no. 4 namely Basic Siksha Adhikari, Kasganj but till date no decision has been taken in the matter.

6. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the respondent no. 4 will take decision in the matter expeditiously.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent no. 4/Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kasganj will take decision in the matter regarding payment of salary as well as arrears of the petitioner most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Arti ARTI SHARMA ARTI SHARMA ARTI SHARMA ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State- respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayers:- "(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to grant regular monthly salary to the petitioner for the post of Headmaster, Amar Guru Junior High School, Nawabganj, Kasganj. (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to grant arrears of salary to the petitioner for the post of Headmaster, Amar Guru Junior High School, Nawabganj, Kasganj w.e.f. 02.04.2016 till date with interest at a rate to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the present petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the month of March, 2016. Aggrieved against the aforesaid one Ranveer Singh filed a petition before this Court being Writ A No. 31800 of 2016 (Ranveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others). In which the following order was passed on 15.07.2016:- "The present petition has been filed challenging the appointment of the respondent no.4 in Amar Guru Junior High School, Nawabganj, Kasganj. The petitioner claims himself to be a Life Member of the Society which runs the said educational institution. It is the case of the petitioner that the service condition including the recruitment to the post of an Assistant Teacher as well as Headmaster in the Institution is governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act and the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978. It has been submitted that a post of Headmaster in the Institution fell vacant for which recruitment process was initiated and the respondent no.4 was selected and his appointment was approved by impugned order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Basic Education Officer, Kasganj even though the respondent no.4 did not hold the minimum qualification for the post of Head Master provided by Rule 4(2)(c) of Rules, 1978, which provides that a candidate must have five years teaching experience in a recognized school. It has been submitted that Rule 2 (h) of the Rules, 1978 provides that a recognized school means any junior High School not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body recognized by the Board as such. It has been submitted that Board as per Rule 2(c) of Rules, 1978 means the U.P. Board of Basic Education constituted under section 3 of the Act, accordingly, from the provisions of Rule 4(2)(c) of the Rules, 1978 read with Rule 2 (c) and Rule 2 (h) it is clear that the teaching experience must be in an institution which is recognized by the Board and, therefore, teaching experience in any other institution would not enure to the benefit of the candidate. It has been submitted that the respondent no.4 has submitted teaching experience certificate obtained from Arcadian Public School (Senior Secondary) which is affiliated to CBSE New Delhi Board but it is not recognized by U.P. Basic Education Board as is the mandate of Rules, 1978 and, therefore, the experience certificate could not have been utilized by the respondent no.4 to gain qualification for appointment. Attention of the Court has been invited to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.350 of 2016 in which by relying on earlier decisions of this Court in Arun Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (1) ALJ 467 and Tasneem Fatima Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (11) ADJ 428, it was held that the teaching experience required for appointment on the post of Headmaster in an Institution governed by the 1978 Rules must be from a recognized school which is duly recognized by the Board of Basic Education. Attention of the Court has also been invited to an interim order dated 29.02.2016 passed in Writ-A No.9296 of 2016 in which similar view has been taken and experience certificate of a candidate obtained from an institution recognized by the CBSE Board was not found in order and, therefore, an interim order was granted. Further to substantiate his locus, the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No.266 of 2015 so as to contend that where salary is to be drawn from public fund, then the question of locus loses its importance once it is brought to the notice of the Court that an illegal appointment has been made. The matter requires consideration. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. Sri S.K. Chaudhary has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no2. Issue notice to the respondent nos.3 and 4 returnable by 30.08.2016. List this petition on 30.08.2016. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the contention that the respondent no.4 does not possess essential qualification for being appointed on the post of Headmaster of the Institution concerned it is hereby provided that the said respondent shall not be paid salary without the leave of the Court, till the next date of listing. "

4. It is argued that though the petitioner was working regularly from the date of his joining but in view of the order passed by this Court on 15.07.2016 the salary was not paid to the petitioner. Ultimately the aforesaid petition was dismissed and interim order dated 15.07.2016 was vacated vide order dated 27.02.2024, which is quoted herein below:- "Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. This writ petition was filed by one Ranveer Singh, to be a life member of concerned Committee. This Court has passed an interim order that no salary will be granted to respondent no. 4 without leave of the Court. It is not under dispute that during pendency of this writ petition, petitioner Ranveer Singh, died on 24.08.2023. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an impleadment application has been filed by one Ram Niwas, declaring himself to be a life member, however, he fairly submits that contents of application are not happily worded. Learned counsel for respondent submits that there is an application for abatement and since cause of action does not survive at the instance of applicant, therefore this writ petition may be dismissed. In the aforesaid circumstances, since original petitioner has died and application filed by applicant for impleadment is defective, therefore, I do not find any reason to keep pending this writ petition. Accordingly, interim order is vacated and writ petition is disposed of with an observation that Committee of Management or member of it, if still so aggrieved, will be at liberty to approach concerned authority or avail any other legal recourse. There is a dispute about eligibility of respondent no. 4, therefore, the Committee of Management is under legal obligation to verify it. "

5. After the aforesaid order was passed, representations were made by the petitioner before Respondent no. 4 namely Basic Siksha Adhikari, Kasganj but till date no decision has been taken in the matter.

6. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the respondent no. 4 will take decision in the matter expeditiously.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent no. 4/Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kasganj will take decision in the matter regarding payment of salary as well as arrears of the petitioner most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Arti ARTI SHARMA ARTI SHARMA ARTI SHARMA ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad