High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9575 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner :- Smt. Sudha Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Earlier on 12.07.2022, the following order had been passed:- "Heard Mr. R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for respondents 1 to 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by means of impugned order dated 25.05.2022, salary payment to the petitioner has been stopped. It is submitted that the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Institution in question when it was not under the grant in aid in the year 2000. It is submitted that after the selection, approval was granted by the then Basic Education Officer vide order dated 14.07.2000. Subsequently, the institution was brought under grant in aid vide Government Order dated 02.12.2006 and in the Manager's Return, petitioner's name appear at serial no.4. In pursuance thereof, the Manager's Return was approved vide order dated 15.9.2007 by the Regional Assistant Director of Eduction(Basic). It is submitted that that in compliance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was being paid salary from the State exchequer with effect from 01.12.2006. In the mean time, one Ms. Shashi Kala Singh, another Assistant Teacher made a complaint that although she was similarly situated as the petitioner but was not being treated as such and was not being paid salary. The said person thereafter filed Writ - A No.6102 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.02.2020 directing the authority concerned to decide the grievances of the said lady after affording opportunity of hearing to all the concerned. In purported pursuance to directions issued by this Court, the impugned order has been passed indicating that the documents pertaining to petitioner's approval by the then Basic Education Officer are fabricated documents. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue before the authority concerned pertained to grant of similar benefit to the said person, Ms. Shashi Kala Singh instead of revisiting the approval orders pertaining to petitioners. It is submitted that even otherwise, the impugned order places reliance on submission made by the then Basic Education Officer to hold that his signatures on the approval order were fabricated but the petitioner was not given any opportunity to confront the same. Considering the aforesaid, learned State Counsel is granted two weeks' time either to seek instructions in the matter or to file short counter affidavit specifically indicating the material which forms the basis of finding in the impugned order that the approval order of the Basic Eduction Officer pertaining to petitioner was fabricated. List this case on 27.07.2022 as a fresh case. The respondent shall also specifically seek instructions pertaining to the fact that petitioner's name as indicated in the Manager's Return was subsequently approved and the effect thereof. Petitioner's case for interim relief will be considered on the next date of listing." In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, learned State Counsel has been provided instructions which reiterate the grounds indicated in impugned order that approval accorded to petitioner earlier by the Basic Education Officer on 14.07.2000 contained forged signatures of official concerned. Learned State Counsel, on the basis of instructions, submits that therefore since the initial approval of petitioner’s appointment itself was found to be forged, the order has been rightly passed. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record and the instructions received by the State Counsel, it is apparent that the impugned order itself has indicated that at the time of initial appointment of petitioner, the institution concerned was not under grant-in-aid and subsequently was brought under as such in the year 2006 whereafter petitioner's name along with names of other teaching and non-teaching staff was sent for the purposes of approval of the authority concerned. It is the admitted case of the parties that subsequently vide order dated 15.09.2007, the Manager's return was approved and financial approval was also accorded to all the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution concerned including the petitioner. The impugned order also makes it evident that due to some dispute raised subsequently, another order dated 03.07.2014 was also passed by the Directorate whereby financial approval for grant of salary to petitioner was again reiterated. However, impugned order has delved only on the aspect of forgery in signatures of the official concerned in the initial approval dated 14.07.2000 only without adverting to the subsequent approval order dated 15.09.2007 by the Regional Assistant Director as well as approval order dated 03.07.2014 also by the Director. Even instructions received by the learned State Counsel delves on the same aspect without adverting to any irregularity or illegality in the subsequent approval orders dated 15.09.2007 and 03.07.2014. Another important aspect to be considered is that the matter before the respondents pertains only to grant of parity to one Ms. Shashi Kala Singh with that of petitioner in terms of directions issued in Writ - A No.6102 of 2016 preferred by the said Ms. Shashi Kala Singh. It is nobody's case that the issue pertaining to dispute regarding petitioner's appointment or financial approval was ever disputed or placed before the authority concerned to have adverted upon the same while passing the impugned order. Once approval to petitioner's appointment and subsequent financial approval has already been granted by means of order dated 15.09.2007 and even thereafter on 03.07.2014, it was incumbent upon the authority concerned to have adverted to same while passing the impugned order. Considering the fact that it is the admitted case of the parties that petitioner's initial appointment was approved and financial approval was also thereafter granted by means of subsequent orders dated 15.09.2007 and 03.07.2014 issued by the Director of Education himself, no exception therefor can be taken nor has been taken to the subsequent orders while passing the impugned order. In the considered opinion of this Court, the subsequent approval orders dated 15.09.2007 and 03.07.2014 being admitted by the respondents themselves and superseding the earlier initial order passed in the year 2000 would have overall effect which has not been considered while passing the impugned order which, therefore, clearly has been passed against the admitted material on record. A vital aspect of the matter also pertains to order dated 03.07.2014 whereunder the Deputy Director of Education has considered the alleged forgery in issuance of order dated 14.07.2000 and has thereafter come to the conclusion that there is nothing adverse in the petitioner's appointment and order dated 14.07.2000. As such petitioner's initial appointment has also been found to be valid by order dated 03.07.2014, which has not been challenged. As such also, the allegation of forgery in the signatures of the concerned authority in the approval order dated 14.07.2000 has already been rejected by the Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 03.07.2014 itself. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. is quashed with consequential benefits so far as the petitioner is concerned by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 4.8.2022 kvg/- Digitally signed by GIREESAN KV Date: 2022.08.06 14:10:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad