Writ Petition No. 53984 of 1999 · High Court · 2025

This being the position, in my opinion, it would only be appropriate if the petitioner is giving fresh opportunity of hearing and the matter is decided on remand taking into consideration the documents, which have been appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The matter of remand will be decided by the District Inspector of Schools within a period of 2 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, he will pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 7,9/th May 2006 is set aside. 2 WRIA No. 9975 of 2019 The writ petition is allowed."

2. Despite the above directions the respondents have re-considered and confirmed the earlier order dated 09.05.2002. Left with no option the petitioners have approached this Court once again in Writ Petition No.38767 of 2004 and the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in (Indukant Dixit and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) dated 06.02.2007.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide notification the Committee of dated 21.12.1998, four posts were notified by Management and pursuant to the said notification four teachers i.e. Mr. Indukant Dixit, Mr. Pramod Kumar Awasthi, the petitioners Mr. Ram Chandra Singh and Santosh Kumar were selected and all the four teachers were appointed by the Committee of Management on the same date. But few of them have approached this Court in a separate Writ Petition No.32064 of 2004. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 06.02.2007.

4. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the other two teachers i.e., Indukant Dixit and Pramod Kumar Awasthi were also considered and rejected pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2007 and they assailed the said order before this Court in Writ A No.15638 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions vide order dated 24.09.2010:- "The writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed on all three counts. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21/28.12.2007 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners to have been validly appointed ad-hoc teachers against short term vacancies and to ensure payment of salary together will all arrears on that account as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the District Inspector of Schools. Needless to say that since the petitioners have been continuing in service and there was an interim order passed in their favour on 1st April 2008, the petitioners shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. The writ petition is allowed."

5. Though, the respondents have filed Special Appeal Defective No.173 of 2011 against the said orders but fact remains that they have implemented the orders in favour of Mr. Indukant Dixit and Pramod Kumar Awasthi by releasing the salaries on 09.09.2011 onwards. Though, the petitioners are also on identical situation but the respondents have not released the salaries in favour of the petitioners and once again rejected the case of the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 04.04.2019 and order of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2019.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire impugned order, though the respondents have considered the statements made by Management as well as the Principal and also the petitioners but surprisingly they have 3 WRIA No. 9975 of 2019 reiterated the very same stand that the Committee of Management has moved right to make adhoc appointments in non-Government Aided Schools. Surprisingly, the said observations were interdicted by this Court in writ petition filed by Indukant Dixit and Pramod Kumar Awasthi in Writ Petition No.15638 of 2008 dated 24.09.2010. Once the Court has taken the stringent view and upheld the appointments of the other two teachers in the said writ petition, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioners on the very same ground.

7. Though, the counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent have not disputed the facts and also the pendency of the Special Appeal Defective No.173 of 2011. Learned Standing Counsel has also admitted that the State has implemented the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.15638 of 2008 dated 24.09.2010 with regard to other two teachers.

8. Considering the submissions and perusal of the record, as all the four posts were filled pursuant to the notification dated 21.12.1998 by the fourth- respondent- Committee of Management and fact remains that after several representations the other two teachers who were appointed under the same notification are getting salaries from 09.09.2011 and denying the salaries to the petitioner is arbitrary. When there is no stay in the Special Appeal Defective No.173 of 2011, the respondent ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioners. Once the respondents have released the salaries to the teachers on the same footing i.e. to Mr. Indukant Dixit and Mr. Pramod Kumar Awasthi, the respondent ought to have released the salaries to the petitioners, subject to the result of Special Appeal Defective No.173 of 2011.

9. In view of the above observations the impugned order dated 06.06.2019 is set aside directing the respondents to release the salaries to the petitioners also with effect from 09.09.2011.

10. Such payment of salaries are subject to the outcome/ result of the Special Appeal Defective No.173 of 2011.

11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

This being the position, in my opinion, it would only be appropriate if the petitioner is giving fresh opportunity of hearing and the matter is decided on remand taking into consideration the documents, which have been appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The matter of remand will be decided by the District Inspector of Schools within a period of 2 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, he will pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 7,9/th May 2006 is set aside. 2 WRIA No. 9975 of 2019 The writ petition is allowed."

2. Despite the above directions the respondents have re-considered and confirmed the earlier order dated 09.05.2002. Left with no option the petitioners have approached this Court once again in Writ Petition No.38767 of 2004 and the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in (Indukant Dixit and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) dated 06.02.2007.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide notification the Committee of dated 21.12.1998, four posts were notified by Management and pursuant to the said notification four teachers i.e. Mr. Indukant Dixit, Mr. Pramod Kumar Awasthi, the petitioners Mr. Ram Chandra Singh and Santosh Kumar were selected and all the four teachers were appointed by the Committee of Management on the same date. But few of them have approached this Court in a separate Writ Petition No.32064 of 2004. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 06.02.2007.

4. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the other two teachers i.e., Indukant Dixit and Pramod Kumar Awasthi were also considered and rejected pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2007 and they assailed the said order before this Court in Writ A No.15638 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions vide order dated 24.09.2010:- "The writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed on all three counts. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21/28.12.2007 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners to have been validly appointed ad-hoc teachers against short term vacancies and to ensure payment of salary together will all arrears on that account as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the District Inspector of Schools. Needless to say that since the petitioners have been continuing in service and there was an interim order passed in their favour on 1st April 2008, the petitioners shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. The writ petition is allowed."

5. Though, the respondents have filed Special Appeal Defective No.173 of 2011 against the said orders but fact remains that they have implemented the orders in favour of Mr. Indukant Dixit and Pramod Kumar Awasthi by releasing the salaries on 09.09.2011 onwards. Though, the petitioners are also on identical situation but the respondents have not released the salaries in favour of the petitioners and once again rejected the case of the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 04.04.2019 and order of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2019.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire impugned order, though the respondents have considered the statements made by Management as well as the Principal and also the petitioners but surprisingly they have 3 WRIA No. 9975 of 2019 reiterated the very same stand that the Committee of Management has moved right to make adhoc appointments in non-Government Aided Schools. Surprisingly, the said observations were interdicted by this Court in writ petition filed by Indukant Dixit and Pramod Kumar Awasthi in Writ Petition No.15638 of 2008 dated 24.09.2010. Once the Court has taken the stringent view and upheld the appointments of the other two teachers in the said writ petition, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioners on the very same ground.

7. Though, the counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent have not disputed the facts and also the pendency of the Special Appeal Defective No.173 of 2011. Learned Standing Counsel has also admitted that the State has implemented the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.15638 of 2008 dated 24.09.2010 with regard to other two teachers.

8. Considering the submissions and perusal of the record, as all the four posts were filled pursuant to the notification dated 21.12.1998 by the fourth- respondent- Committee of Management and fact remains that after several representations the other two teachers who were appointed under the same notification are getting salaries from 09.09.2011 and denying the salaries to the petitioner is arbitrary. When there is no stay in the Special Appeal Defective No.173 of 2011, the respondent ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioners. Once the respondents have released the salaries to the teachers on the same footing i.e. to Mr. Indukant Dixit and Mr. Pramod Kumar Awasthi, the respondent ought to have released the salaries to the petitioners, subject to the result of Special Appeal Defective No.173 of 2011.

9. In view of the above observations the impugned order dated 06.06.2019 is set aside directing the respondents to release the salaries to the petitioners also with effect from 09.09.2011.

10. Such payment of salaries are subject to the outcome/ result of the Special Appeal Defective No.173 of 2011.

11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad