Manoj Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and four others wherein interpretation was made
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178963 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15448 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar Kalra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava Iii Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava III learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri Uday Shanker Upadhyay learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondents no.1 to 4. 2. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the fifth respondent.
Decision
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the fifth respondent, D.C. Jain Inter College, Sarsawan, District Saharanpur is a minority institution entitled to protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India is governed under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. Act No.24 of 1971. 4. The petitioner claims to have passed Intermediate Examination from U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board and pursued B.Sc. from Meerut University and had also possessed Master's Degree in Commerce and C.C.C. Diploma in July, 2018. 5. According to the writ petitioner determination of the sanctioned strength vis-a-vis the students took place wherein as many as one post of Head Clerk and two posts of Assistant Head Clerks were found to be sanctioned and one post of Assistant Clerk fell vacant on 31.05.2010 due to retirement of one Sri Satyapal Rohila and another post of Assistant Clerk fell vacant on 29.01.2016 when one Sri Chaman Lal working as Assistant Clerk was given promotion as Head Clerk. According to the writ petitioner the post also was liable to be vacant in future consequent to the retirement of Sri Chaman Lal on 31.12.2001, however in between also no selections were done pursuant to that the another post was vacant. It is further stated that on 13.04.2022 by virtue of the Agenda No.5 of the Committee of Management of the Institution in question proposed to fill up the said post of Assistant Clerk through promotion. The requisite documents along with the request letter was also forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, District Saharanpur fourth respondent on 05.05.2022 however, nothing was done. As per the writ petitioner in the meantime certain subsequent developments took place occasioning passing of the order dated 09.05.2022 in Writ-A No.13182 of 2019, Manoj Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and four others wherein interpretation was made with relation to Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Post knowledge of the said judgement exercise was undertaken by the fifth respondent to fill up post of Assistant Clerk followed by advertisement in widely circulated newspapers on 24.06.2022. Communication in that regard was also made to the Educational Authorities however, an order was stated to have been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur addressed to the Manager of the institution dated 29.07.2022 whereby the selections were held to be invalid which led to filing of writ petition No.12811 of 2022, Committee of Management D.C. Jain Inter College and others v. State of U.P. in which on 30.08.2022 the order dated 29.07.2022 was treated to be a show cause notice granting opportunity to file objection to the same. However, according to the writ petitioner the Committee of Management tendered his objection but no orders whereof has been passed. Pleadings further reveal that pursuant to the said advertisement the writ petitioner applied and he was found to be suitable along with the other candidates and appointment letter was also issued to him on 12.01.2023 and assume the charge on 18.01.2023. Though formalities for getting approval of the appointment has been resorted to but the same has not been given a logical end. 6. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the fourth respondent District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur to accord approval to the selection and the appointment of the writ petitioner on the post of Assistant Clerk. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that issue as to whether approval is to be accorded to the selection and the appointment of the writ petitioner needs determination at the first instance by the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur, who shall address to the claim of the writ petitioner. He further submits that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition. 8. To such a submission learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same. 9. Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the fourth respondent along with the self attested copy of the writ petition who shall on the receipt of the same put to notice to the fifth respondent in advance in writing and thereafter proceed to decide the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order bearing in mind the following fundamental and core issues; (a) the issue with regard to the conduction of the selections and issuance of the appointment without there being any approval; (b) the adherence to the rules and the statutes governing the selection; (c) eligibility, suitability of the writ petitioner and the other deserving candidates who are claiming to have been selected; (d) the import and the impart and non grant of approval; (e) the import, impact and the applicability of the judgement in the case of Manoj Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and four others decided on 09.05.2022 in Writ-A No.13182 of 2019; (f) any other incidental or ancillary issue connected with the matter. 10. Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response thus passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on merits as it is open for the fourth respondent to accord consideration strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Jitendra Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad