HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

2. All the petitioners were selected in the 4th respondent - institution vide resolution dated 10.03.2019 and the 4th respondent issued appointment letters to the petitioners vide order dated 28.06.2019. Therefore, the petitioners submitted their joining reports before the 4th respondent. Accordingly, on different dates in 1st week of July, the petitioners joined the institution. After selection, the committee of management sent proposals along with select list to District Inspector of Schools, Basti on 17.05.2019 for grant financial approval. The District Inspector of Schools received the proposals but has not passed any order though the respondents have issued appointment letters to the petitioners.

3. The said appointments were disapproved by the 3rd respondent vide order dated

06.07.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

4. The appointments of the petitioners were disapproved / rejected by District Inspector of Schools, Basti on two grounds. Firstly, as the 4th respondent - institution being minority institution, the posts which were vacant were not filled up within three months from the date of actual vacancy, the posts would automatically be lapsed and to fill up the said post, there should be directions from Director of Education for re- determination of the posts which has not been done in the present case. Secondly, the selection is contrary to the Government order dated 12.03.2018.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made his submissions that rejection order is contrary to records as the said two grounds are not applicable in the instant case. In fact, there was some dispute in the management of 2 WRIA No. 16604 of 2019 the institution and pending litigation, Writ-A No.36703 of 2005 was filed by the members of the committee of management and as against Special Appeal No.356 of 2007 was also filed before this Court. The said Special Appeal was disposed of by this Court on 12.05.2017.

6. Subsequent to the disposal of the said Special Appeal and settlement of the dispute between management, new committee of management filed Writ-A No.11671 of 2015 wherein the following observations were made by this Court vide order dated

21.12.2017 which reads as follows: "In view of the larger interest of the institution particularly the students, it is directed that the newly constituted Committee of Management shall take all steps in accordance with law for appointment of regularly selected Principal in the institution in question, if there is no legal impediment."

7. In view of the above said orders, this Court has permitted the committee of management to take all steps in accordance with law for appointment of regularly selected Principal in the institution in question.

8. Accordingly, initially the institution has passed the resolution on 07.01.2018 to fill up the post of Principal, one lecturer and 29 assistant teachers LT Grade after obtaining permission from District Inspector of Schools on 30.12.2017. Accordingly, advertisement was made on 24.04.2018. Subsequently, the committee of management vide resolution dated 28.01.2018 has initiated process for filling up the post of Principal. Therefore, panel of experts / selection committee was constituted vide order dated 08.02.2018. As per the selection committee constituted has interviewed the persons and recommended one Mohd. Yahiya Khan for the post of Principal. Accordingly, vide order dated 27.02.2018, Joint Director of Education has accorded approval.

9. In view of the dispute between management and finally as directed by this Court in Writ-A No.11671 of 2015 on 21.12.2017, the first ground of rejection made in the impugned order is contrary to the above said directions of this Court. In fact, after re- determination of vacancy when the litigation was pending before this Court, finally this Court has considered and granted liberty for selection of the Principal and other vacancies to the management vide order dated 21.12.2017. Hence, the respondents ought not to have rejected approval of the petitioners' appointment on the ground that posts have lapsed. In fact, as directed by this Court on 21.12.2017, the committee of management initiated process of selection of Principal and other substantive vacancies vide resolution dated 28.01.2018.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made his submissions that second ground of rejection of the petitioners' appointment is that the 4th respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated in the Government Order 3 WRIA No. 16604 of 2019 dated 12.03.2018 which deals with the appointment of the teachers in minority institution. The said Government Order is not applicable in the instant case. It has been further submitted that based on the directions issued by this Court permitting the 4th respondent to fill up the posts, the committee of management has taken a decision vide resolution dated 28.01.2018 to fill up the posts and accordingly, the selection committee was constituted vide order dated 08.02.2018. Hence, selection procedure was initiated much prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated 12.03.2018. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under the Government Order dated 12.03.2018 would not be applicable to the appointment / selection of the petitioners. As initiation of the procedure was much prior to the said Government Order dated 12.03.2018, hence the impugned order is contrary to records. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners requests to set aside the impugned order and further seeks mandamus to approve appointment / selection of the petitioners.

11. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 and 6 have submitted that the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is contrary to the observations made by the constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others (2025) 2 SCC 1 and also the observations made by division Bench of this Court in the case Dal Chand and 143 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others in Writ- A No.5290 of 2023.

12. To support his contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has placed reliance on the above said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, more particularly on paragraph nos.22, 65, 65.1 which are extracted below: "22. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment.

65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:

65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;"

13. Further the same question was considered by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Dal Chand (supra). In paragraph nos. 13, 14, 15 of the said judgment, it was held as follows: "13. The undisputed fact remains that the process of recruitment commenced on 19.5.2011, when the Rules of 2008 were applicable. The process of recruitment commenced under the Rules of 2008. One of the questions, which arose for 4 WRIA No. 16604 of 2019 consideration before the Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) was as to when the recruitment process commences and comes to an end?

14. The answer to the above question is contained in paragraph 42 (1) of the judgment based upon the discussions held in paragraph 13 of the judgment. Paragraph 13 of the judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) is reproduced hereinafter: "13. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment."

15. In paragraph 42 (1), the Court has held as under: "42 (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies."

14. In view of the above observations of Hon'ble Apex Court and the division Bench of this Court, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the instant case, Rules were amended vide Government Order dated 12.03.2018 and posts were advertised in newspaper on 24.04.2018 which is much after the Government Order dated 12.03.2018. Hence, it should be construed that selection process started on 24.04.2018. Therefore, the 4th respondent has to follow the procedure contemplated under the Government Order dated 12.03.2018.

15. In reply to the contention, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has admitted that the 4th respondent has not followed the procedure which was contemplated under the Government Order dated 12.03.2018 but he has made his submissions that selection process has started much prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated 12.03.2018. In fact, after disposal of the writ petition filed by the committee of management, vide resolution dated 28.01.2018 the committee of management has initiated process and selection committee was constituted with the permission of the Joint Director of Education vide order dated 08.02.2018. Hence, it should be construed that the selection has taken place much prior to the issuance of the amended procedure / Government Order dated 12.03.2018.

16. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, as far as the first ground of rejection is concerned, the 4th respondent has initiated process of selection as directed by this Court in Writ-A No.11671 of 2015 but as far as the second ground is concerned, as observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) and also by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Dal Chand (supra), wherein it has been held that process of recruitment commences from the date of advertisement calling for applications. As in the instant 5 WRIA No. 16604 of 2019 case, the 4th respondent issued advertisement on 24.04.2018 calling for applications to fill up substantive vacant posts, this Court is of the opinion that selection process has started only from 24.04.2018, hence the procedure contemplated under the Government Order dated 12.03.2018 is applicable to the said selection.

17. In view of the above observations, the present writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 8, 2025 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

2. All the petitioners were selected in the 4th respondent - institution vide resolution dated 10.03.2019 and the 4th respondent issued appointment letters to the petitioners vide order dated 28.06.2019. Therefore, the petitioners submitted their joining reports before the 4th respondent. Accordingly, on different dates in 1st week of July, the petitioners joined the institution. After selection, the committee of management sent proposals along with select list to District Inspector of Schools, Basti on 17.05.2019 for grant financial approval. The District Inspector of Schools received the proposals but has not passed any order though the respondents have issued appointment letters to the petitioners.

3. The said appointments were disapproved by the 3rd respondent vide order dated

06.07.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

4. The appointments of the petitioners were disapproved / rejected by District Inspector of Schools, Basti on two grounds. Firstly, as the 4th respondent - institution being minority institution, the posts which were vacant were not filled up within three months from the date of actual vacancy, the posts would automatically be lapsed and to fill up the said post, there should be directions from Director of Education for re- determination of the posts which has not been done in the present case. Secondly, the selection is contrary to the Government order dated 12.03.2018.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made his submissions that rejection order is contrary to records as the said two grounds are not applicable in the instant case. In fact, there was some dispute in the management of 2 WRIA No. 16604 of 2019 the institution and pending litigation, Writ-A No.36703 of 2005 was filed by the members of the committee of management and as against Special Appeal No.356 of 2007 was also filed before this Court. The said Special Appeal was disposed of by this Court on 12.05.2017.

6. Subsequent to the disposal of the said Special Appeal and settlement of the dispute between management, new committee of management filed Writ-A No.11671 of 2015 wherein the following observations were made by this Court vide order dated

21.12.2017 which reads as follows: "In view of the larger interest of the institution particularly the students, it is directed that the newly constituted Committee of Management shall take all steps in accordance with law for appointment of regularly selected Principal in the institution in question, if there is no legal impediment."

7. In view of the above said orders, this Court has permitted the committee of management to take all steps in accordance with law for appointment of regularly selected Principal in the institution in question.

8. Accordingly, initially the institution has passed the resolution on 07.01.2018 to fill up the post of Principal, one lecturer and 29 assistant teachers LT Grade after obtaining permission from District Inspector of Schools on 30.12.2017. Accordingly, advertisement was made on 24.04.2018. Subsequently, the committee of management vide resolution dated 28.01.2018 has initiated process for filling up the post of Principal. Therefore, panel of experts / selection committee was constituted vide order dated 08.02.2018. As per the selection committee constituted has interviewed the persons and recommended one Mohd. Yahiya Khan for the post of Principal. Accordingly, vide order dated 27.02.2018, Joint Director of Education has accorded approval.

9. In view of the dispute between management and finally as directed by this Court in Writ-A No.11671 of 2015 on 21.12.2017, the first ground of rejection made in the impugned order is contrary to the above said directions of this Court. In fact, after re- determination of vacancy when the litigation was pending before this Court, finally this Court has considered and granted liberty for selection of the Principal and other vacancies to the management vide order dated 21.12.2017. Hence, the respondents ought not to have rejected approval of the petitioners' appointment on the ground that posts have lapsed. In fact, as directed by this Court on 21.12.2017, the committee of management initiated process of selection of Principal and other substantive vacancies vide resolution dated 28.01.2018.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made his submissions that second ground of rejection of the petitioners' appointment is that the 4th respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated in the Government Order 3 WRIA No. 16604 of 2019 dated 12.03.2018 which deals with the appointment of the teachers in minority institution. The said Government Order is not applicable in the instant case. It has been further submitted that based on the directions issued by this Court permitting the 4th respondent to fill up the posts, the committee of management has taken a decision vide resolution dated 28.01.2018 to fill up the posts and accordingly, the selection committee was constituted vide order dated 08.02.2018. Hence, selection procedure was initiated much prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated 12.03.2018. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under the Government Order dated 12.03.2018 would not be applicable to the appointment / selection of the petitioners. As initiation of the procedure was much prior to the said Government Order dated 12.03.2018, hence the impugned order is contrary to records. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners requests to set aside the impugned order and further seeks mandamus to approve appointment / selection of the petitioners.

11. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 and 6 have submitted that the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is contrary to the observations made by the constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others (2025) 2 SCC 1 and also the observations made by division Bench of this Court in the case Dal Chand and 143 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others in Writ- A No.5290 of 2023.

12. To support his contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has placed reliance on the above said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, more particularly on paragraph nos.22, 65, 65.1 which are extracted below: "22. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment.

65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:

65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;"

13. Further the same question was considered by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Dal Chand (supra). In paragraph nos. 13, 14, 15 of the said judgment, it was held as follows: "13. The undisputed fact remains that the process of recruitment commenced on 19.5.2011, when the Rules of 2008 were applicable. The process of recruitment commenced under the Rules of 2008. One of the questions, which arose for 4 WRIA No. 16604 of 2019 consideration before the Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) was as to when the recruitment process commences and comes to an end?

14. The answer to the above question is contained in paragraph 42 (1) of the judgment based upon the discussions held in paragraph 13 of the judgment. Paragraph 13 of the judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) is reproduced hereinafter: "13. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment."

15. In paragraph 42 (1), the Court has held as under: "42 (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies."

14. In view of the above observations of Hon'ble Apex Court and the division Bench of this Court, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the instant case, Rules were amended vide Government Order dated 12.03.2018 and posts were advertised in newspaper on 24.04.2018 which is much after the Government Order dated 12.03.2018. Hence, it should be construed that selection process started on 24.04.2018. Therefore, the 4th respondent has to follow the procedure contemplated under the Government Order dated 12.03.2018.

15. In reply to the contention, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has admitted that the 4th respondent has not followed the procedure which was contemplated under the Government Order dated 12.03.2018 but he has made his submissions that selection process has started much prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated 12.03.2018. In fact, after disposal of the writ petition filed by the committee of management, vide resolution dated 28.01.2018 the committee of management has initiated process and selection committee was constituted with the permission of the Joint Director of Education vide order dated 08.02.2018. Hence, it should be construed that the selection has taken place much prior to the issuance of the amended procedure / Government Order dated 12.03.2018.

16. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, as far as the first ground of rejection is concerned, the 4th respondent has initiated process of selection as directed by this Court in Writ-A No.11671 of 2015 but as far as the second ground is concerned, as observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) and also by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Dal Chand (supra), wherein it has been held that process of recruitment commences from the date of advertisement calling for applications. As in the instant 5 WRIA No. 16604 of 2019 case, the 4th respondent issued advertisement on 24.04.2018 calling for applications to fill up substantive vacant posts, this Court is of the opinion that selection process has started only from 24.04.2018, hence the procedure contemplated under the Government Order dated 12.03.2018 is applicable to the said selection.

17. In view of the above observations, the present writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 8, 2025 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad