HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri H.P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner no.1 was appointed as lecturer in physics and petitioner nos.2 and 3 were appointed two assistant teachers LT Grade in the 4th respondent - institution. The said orders of appointment were disapproved by District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, vide order dated 06.02.2004. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.5475 of 2004. In the said writ petition, interim order was granted on

11.02.2004, which reads as follows: "Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners states that the ban was applicable to Government servant and was not applicable for the appointment in minorities institutions and in any case the ban on appointments has been subsequently lifted. The Government Order dated 29.08.2003 did not stay and stop selection process. The matter requires consideration. Until further orders, the effect and operation of the order dated 06.02.2004 shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue as Lecturer physics (petitioner no.1) and L.T. Grade Teacher (Petitioners No.2 and 3) and shall be paid their salaries regularly."

3. Finally, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following orders on

15.03.2019: "1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record. 2 WRIA No. 16025 of 2019

2. Vide order dated 06.2.2004, approval has been declined to appointment of petitioners as Assistant Teachers on the ground that Government vide Government Order dated 29.08.2003 has banned all such appointment. Copy of Government Order dated 29.08.2003 is Annexure 9 to the writ petition which reads as under : "शासन ्षारा सभी ्ऺकार की भितयों को अ्षेतर आदेशों तक स्थिगत करने का िनणर्य िलया गया है। कृ पया अपने अधीनस्थ सभी िनयुि्व ्ऺािधकािरयों को इन आदेशों से अवगत कराते हुए इनका अनुपालन सुिनि्ात कराने का क्ि करें। यह आदेश वषर् 2001 के समूह "ग" की परी्षा से संबंिधत माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों के अनुपालन में की जा रही भतर् पर लागू नहीं होंगे।" "The decision to postpone all kinds of recruitments till further orders has been taken by the government. Please ensure compliance of these orders after apprising all your subordinate appointing authorities of the same. This order shall not be applicable to the recruitments being held in compliance with the orders of Hon'ble High Court with respect to Class 'C' Examination, 2001." (English Translation by Court)

3. It is addressed to all Principal Secretary, Commissioner, District Magistrate and Head of Department and apparently shows that it is applicable only in respect to Civil Post which are within the purview of Rule framing power of Governor and the same is not applicable to privately managed Educational Institutions.

4. In view thereof, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.02.2004 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition) is hereby set aside.

5. The respondents District Inspector of Schools shall pass a fresh order within two months in accordance with law."

4. Though the matter was once again remanded to District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly to pass afresh orders based on the observations made by this Court but surprisingly, the 2nd respondent rejected / disapproved appointment of the petitioners on the very same ground vide order dated

26.09.2019.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

6. Considering the submissions made, this Court passed the following interim orders on 19.10.2019: "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Sri Achal K. Mishra, the then District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, during the course of the day. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri H.P. Sahi, learned 3 WRIA No. 16025 of 2019 counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Issue notice to Sri Achal K. Mishra, the then District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, presently posted as Vice-Principal, D.I.E.T., Shahjahanpur, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to show cause as to why contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, may not be initiated against him. Steps be taken within a week. Four weeks' time is allowed to learned counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on 2 December 2019, before the appropriate Bench. Petitioners are assailing the impugned order dated 26 September 2019, passed by the fourth respondent-District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, whereby, the appointment and selection of the petitioners made in 2004, has been set aside. The respondent Institution is a minority institution. Petitioners came to be selected against the post of Lecturer and Assistant Teacher, respectively. The approval was denied on the ground that there is ban for making appointment. The order dated 6 February 2004, passed by the then District Inspector of Schools came to be stayed in a petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5475 of 2004 (Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others). Pursuant to the interim order, petitioners were being paid regular salary from the State Exchequer. The writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 15 March 2019, holding therein that the Government Order restraining the authorities from making appointment was applicable to civil posts falling within the purview of the rule making power of the Governor and the same is not applicable to privately managed educational institutions. Pursuant thereof, the impugned order came to be passed on the ground that the appointment is against the Government Order imposing ban on appointment and prior approval was not obtained from the District Inspector of Schools, before initiating the process of selection. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the order impugned tantamounts to ex facie contempt of this Court. In the impugned order, the same Government Order has been relied upon which was not applicable upon the educational institutions thereby depriving the petitioners of their salary. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are not qualified. Submissions require consideration. Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 26 September 2019, passed by the fourth respondent-District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, shall remain stayed. Petitioners shall be entitled to salary of the post they are working on month to month basis." 4 WRIA No. 16025 of 2019

7. After notice, the respondents filed counter affidavit on 19.12.2019 but the respondents have only made comments with regard to the orders passed by them on 06.02.2004 whereas there is no averment with regard to the impugned order in the counter affidavit. Though this Court has considered and made serious observations in its interim order on 19.10.2019 but the respondents have not chosen to withdraw the said orders and have also not defended their action in the counter affidavit. In fact, earlier writ petition was allowed with the observations that though rejection was made on the ground that the Government Order dated 29.08.2003 is not applicable to the privately managed educational institution but for reasons best known, the respondents once again rejected the claim of the petitioners on the very same ground and while considering the submissions, this Court constrained to initiate action against the concerned officer under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Despite the said observations, the respondents have not chosen to withdraw the orders passed contrary to the observations made by this Court in Writ-A No.5475 of 2004.

8. Considering the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and also on perusal of the orders passed in Writ- A No.5475 of 2004 on 15.03.2019 and interim order dated 19.10.2019 passed by this Court whereby this Court constrained to initiate any proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, is set aside. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.50,000/- which shall be recovered from the concerned officer and shall be paid to the petitioners. September 8, 2025 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 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 Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri H.P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner no.1 was appointed as lecturer in physics and petitioner nos.2 and 3 were appointed two assistant teachers LT Grade in the 4th respondent - institution. The said orders of appointment were disapproved by District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, vide order dated 06.02.2004. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.5475 of 2004. In the said writ petition, interim order was granted on

11.02.2004, which reads as follows: "Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners states that the ban was applicable to Government servant and was not applicable for the appointment in minorities institutions and in any case the ban on appointments has been subsequently lifted. The Government Order dated 29.08.2003 did not stay and stop selection process. The matter requires consideration. Until further orders, the effect and operation of the order dated 06.02.2004 shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue as Lecturer physics (petitioner no.1) and L.T. Grade Teacher (Petitioners No.2 and 3) and shall be paid their salaries regularly."

3. Finally, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following orders on

15.03.2019: "1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record. 2 WRIA No. 16025 of 2019

2. Vide order dated 06.2.2004, approval has been declined to appointment of petitioners as Assistant Teachers on the ground that Government vide Government Order dated 29.08.2003 has banned all such appointment. Copy of Government Order dated 29.08.2003 is Annexure 9 to the writ petition which reads as under : "शासन ्षारा सभी ्ऺकार की भितयों को अ्षेतर आदेशों तक स्थिगत करने का िनणर्य िलया गया है। कृ पया अपने अधीनस्थ सभी िनयुि्व ्ऺािधकािरयों को इन आदेशों से अवगत कराते हुए इनका अनुपालन सुिनि्ात कराने का क्ि करें। यह आदेश वषर् 2001 के समूह "ग" की परी्षा से संबंिधत माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों के अनुपालन में की जा रही भतर् पर लागू नहीं होंगे।" "The decision to postpone all kinds of recruitments till further orders has been taken by the government. Please ensure compliance of these orders after apprising all your subordinate appointing authorities of the same. This order shall not be applicable to the recruitments being held in compliance with the orders of Hon'ble High Court with respect to Class 'C' Examination, 2001." (English Translation by Court)

3. It is addressed to all Principal Secretary, Commissioner, District Magistrate and Head of Department and apparently shows that it is applicable only in respect to Civil Post which are within the purview of Rule framing power of Governor and the same is not applicable to privately managed Educational Institutions.

4. In view thereof, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.02.2004 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition) is hereby set aside.

5. The respondents District Inspector of Schools shall pass a fresh order within two months in accordance with law."

4. Though the matter was once again remanded to District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly to pass afresh orders based on the observations made by this Court but surprisingly, the 2nd respondent rejected / disapproved appointment of the petitioners on the very same ground vide order dated

26.09.2019.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

6. Considering the submissions made, this Court passed the following interim orders on 19.10.2019: "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Sri Achal K. Mishra, the then District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, during the course of the day. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri H.P. Sahi, learned 3 WRIA No. 16025 of 2019 counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Issue notice to Sri Achal K. Mishra, the then District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, presently posted as Vice-Principal, D.I.E.T., Shahjahanpur, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to show cause as to why contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, may not be initiated against him. Steps be taken within a week. Four weeks' time is allowed to learned counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on 2 December 2019, before the appropriate Bench. Petitioners are assailing the impugned order dated 26 September 2019, passed by the fourth respondent-District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, whereby, the appointment and selection of the petitioners made in 2004, has been set aside. The respondent Institution is a minority institution. Petitioners came to be selected against the post of Lecturer and Assistant Teacher, respectively. The approval was denied on the ground that there is ban for making appointment. The order dated 6 February 2004, passed by the then District Inspector of Schools came to be stayed in a petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5475 of 2004 (Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others). Pursuant to the interim order, petitioners were being paid regular salary from the State Exchequer. The writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 15 March 2019, holding therein that the Government Order restraining the authorities from making appointment was applicable to civil posts falling within the purview of the rule making power of the Governor and the same is not applicable to privately managed educational institutions. Pursuant thereof, the impugned order came to be passed on the ground that the appointment is against the Government Order imposing ban on appointment and prior approval was not obtained from the District Inspector of Schools, before initiating the process of selection. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the order impugned tantamounts to ex facie contempt of this Court. In the impugned order, the same Government Order has been relied upon which was not applicable upon the educational institutions thereby depriving the petitioners of their salary. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are not qualified. Submissions require consideration. Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 26 September 2019, passed by the fourth respondent-District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, shall remain stayed. Petitioners shall be entitled to salary of the post they are working on month to month basis." 4 WRIA No. 16025 of 2019

7. After notice, the respondents filed counter affidavit on 19.12.2019 but the respondents have only made comments with regard to the orders passed by them on 06.02.2004 whereas there is no averment with regard to the impugned order in the counter affidavit. Though this Court has considered and made serious observations in its interim order on 19.10.2019 but the respondents have not chosen to withdraw the said orders and have also not defended their action in the counter affidavit. In fact, earlier writ petition was allowed with the observations that though rejection was made on the ground that the Government Order dated 29.08.2003 is not applicable to the privately managed educational institution but for reasons best known, the respondents once again rejected the claim of the petitioners on the very same ground and while considering the submissions, this Court constrained to initiate action against the concerned officer under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Despite the said observations, the respondents have not chosen to withdraw the orders passed contrary to the observations made by this Court in Writ-A No.5475 of 2004.

8. Considering the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and also on perusal of the orders passed in Writ- A No.5475 of 2004 on 15.03.2019 and interim order dated 19.10.2019 passed by this Court whereby this Court constrained to initiate any proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, is set aside. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.50,000/- which shall be recovered from the concerned officer and shall be paid to the petitioners. September 8, 2025 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad