High Court · 2015
Case Details
2025:AHC:24960 Reserved – 04/02/2025 Delivered – 19/02/2025 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9025 of 2015 Petitioner :- Smt. Meera Agnihotri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Rai,U.N. Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Adarsh Singh,C.S.C.,Rahul Srivastava Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. This writ petition was filed on 11th February 2015 wherein an order dated 4th December 2012 was impugned i.e. after more than 2 years. During pendency of this case, the petitioner has attained age of superannuation and was retired on 30th June 2015 i.e. within few months. 2. This was a second round of litigation. Initially the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a Writ A
Decision
No. 29031/2012, which was disposed of by an order dated 1st June 2012 with a direction to consider grievance of the petitioner in regard to her promotion within 25% quota. For reference, said order is quoted below :- “The Regional Level Committee under the order dated 18th December, 2010 passed in compliance to the order of the High Court dated 28.05.2010 made in Writ Petition No. 31536 of 2010 has already provided that 25% of the post of L.T. Grade teachers be filled from the teachers working in the attached Primary Section, the same order also determine the seniority as well as eligibility of the teachers of the Primary Section of the institution. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the said order actual promotion within the 25% quota has not been provided. The matter needs to be examined by the respondent no. 2 (Joint Director of Education/ Chairman, Regional Level Committee, Allahabad Region, Allahabad) at the first instance. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation ventilating all his grievance before respondent no. 2 within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no. 2 shall consider and decide the same, after affording opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within eight weeks from the date the representation is so filed. All consequential action shall taken immediately thereafter.” 3. The petitioner was earlier served with an adverse entry by an order dated 20th June 2019 issued by Principal of the institution. In terms of Regulations 69 to 73 of Chapter 3 of UP Intermediate Act, 1921, a Principal could award an adverse entry to the teachers, however, an aggrieved teacher has a liberty to file a representation before the Manager of the Committee of Management and according to records, petitioner has filed representation before the Committee on 23rd July 2009, but it was not decided. 4. Meanwhile, claim of petitioner for promotion was considered by the Committee of Management for LT Grade Teacher and by impugned order dated 4th December 2012, petitioner was not considered for promotion due to an adverse entry. 2 5. Sri Abhishek Rai, learned advocate for petitioner has submitted that representation filed by petitioner against adverse entry was kept pending and it was not decided and has referred that by the impugned order, her claim for promotion was rejected only due to an adverse entry and as such she was adversely affected. 6. Learned advocate has made few arguments that in view of nature of allegations, adverse entry was not appropriate and he has referred contents of representation filed by petitioner before the Manager. Power of Principal to award an adverse entry was also disputed. 7. Learned advocate has further submitted that there were four vacant posts for promotion, however, Committee of Management has declared only three posts and he referred detail of the year 2007 that there were four posts of LT Grade Teacher under promotional quota. According to petitioner, in the institution, there were 14 promotional posts and not 13 as claimed by respondents. 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Adarsh Singh, learned advocate for respondent-5 Committee of Management has referred paragraph 7 of counter affidavit which is quoted below that only 3 posts would fall under promotional quota :- “That the contents of paragraphs no. 15 and 16 of the writ petition are absolutely misconceived incorrect and are denied. In reply it is respectfully submitted that there were total 13 sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers in LT Grade against which 12 3 Assistant Teacher were already working when the petitioner instituted her claim for promotion under 25% promotion quota provided under Regulation 7 of Chapter 2, the same has also been admitted by the petitioner before the Respondent no. 2 while submitting her representation which has also taken note of in the order impugned dated 04.12.2012 passed by the Regional Level Committee as well as the said position is also apparently established by the perusal of the report of the District Inspector of Schools submitted before the respondent no.2. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any material to establish that there were 14 sanctioned posts rather she had made only bald assertions which cannot be accepted unless corroborated by any evidence on record. It is further submitted that while calculating 25% of 13 sanctioned posts only 3 posts would fall under the promotion quota prescribed for teachers of attached primary section of institution for promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade and in view of the fact that the petitioner was adjust to be at serial no. 4 in the seniority list of Assistant Teacher of attached primary section prepared by the Regional Committee vide its order dated 18.12.2010 she could not have been promoted against the sole vacant posts of Assistant Teacher LT Grade under the aforesaid promotion quota.” 9. In reply to it, learned advocate for petitioner has referred paragraph 6 of rejoinder affidavit :- “6. That the contents of paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit are vehemently denied. In reply thereto, it is most respectfully submitted that since June, 2007, the total sanctioned strength in the institution was 14 and 4 posts were lying vacant in the institution since 2007 and in this regard a letter dated 21.04.2007 has been issued whereby a list of working posts and vacant pots issued by the Principal and Manager of the institution. Copy of the list of sanctioned strength teachers in the 4 institution dated 21.03.2007 issued by the Principal and Manager of the institution is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE RA-'1' to this rejoinder affidavit. From perusal of the list dated 21.04.2007, it is crystal clear that under LT Grade category admittedly four posts were lying vacant in the institution but deliberately a false affidavit filed by the concerned authority by mentioning in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that only one post was lying vacant in the institution. Further while filing this counter affidavit, the deponent of the counter affidavit has tried to mislead the Hon'ble Court, hence, a suitable disciplinary proceeding may be initiated against the deponent of the counter affidavit.” 10. Heard learned advocate for parties and perused the record. 11. First adverse circumstance against petitioner is that he has approached this Court to challenge impugned order dated 4th December 2012 after a period of more than 2 years when she was at the verge of retirement and within 4 months of filing of this writ petition, petitioner got retired on 30th June 2015. No interim order was passed by this Court during pendency of this case, therefore petitioner was not diligent to approach this Court within shortest period. She has also not taken any step to approach this Court for expeditious consideration of the representation of Committee of Management. 12. The next issue is of granting of adverse entry by the Principal. According to Regulation no. 69 of Chapter 3 of Section 16 of Act of 1921, Principal is the appropriate authority to pass such order, therefore, objection of power by petitioner has no legal basis. 5 13. Contents of adverse entry appears to be true since petitioner has not reported to college or informed the college that she was further required by the Department of Education to check the answer sheets. No communication is on record that petitioner has informed Principal about her over stay as well as she has not used proper language. Even the words used in reply were not appropriate rather these were threatening and for reference, relevant part of reply as considered by Principal are mentioned below :- लिलखा है " किक 25-5-09 तथ्य से आप쮵े " मूल्यांक쮵 के न्뤁쩩 म꾔껥 मेरे ्ቛारा आपक滊斁 भेजे ग化䦼 प䃝䦜 क滊斁 पढकर ले쮵े से किकया हᬯᯒ अप쮵ी इन्कार 쮵ह䁅㜸 इन्कार कर쮵े के , अ쮵ुशास쮵ही쮵ता अव्ሺा 化䦼वं अ쮵धी쮵ता पर प勸支ा) डाल쮵े के उप्ቅम म꾔껥 आप쮵े न्यायालय म꾔껥 वा勸支 勸支ायर कर쮵े क溍敽 धमक溍敽 मु勑䂠 ्ቚधा쮵ाचाया) क滊斁 ቝኌ56湲岘त क滊斁 गम्भीर ब쮵ाता है롟꽣 आप쮵े 勸支ी है롟꽣 आपका यह आचर鍮硕 भी अप쮵े प䃝䦜 म꾔껥 मᬯᯒ मीरा अकि<ह滊斁䃝䦜ी आप ्ቛारा ्ቚेकि=त प䃝䦜 कि勸支쮵ांक के माध्यम से मु勑䂠 पर लगा化䦼 ग化䦼 सम5त कि쮵राधार "롟꽣 , भኚᮌस)쮵ा 化䦼वं आर滊斁प尸温 का कड़े शब्勸支尸温 म꾔껥 खण्ड쮵 आपका उ्ሹवत लेख쮵 आपके अहंकार, अ쮵ुशास쮵ही쮵ता, अ쮵धी쮵्ቈा है롟꽣 मᬯᯒ쮵े आपसे 化䦼वं अव्ሺा क溍敽 आपक溍敽 ्ቚकृ 湲岘त क滊斁 पु尭匘 करता तहत ्ቚधा쮵ाचाया) के जिजसका सीधा उ्ቈर 쮵 勸支ेकर आप쮵े न्यायालय म꾔껥 5प尭匘ीकर鍮硕 मांगा है कि쮵न्勸支ा कर쮵े ऐसे शब्勸支尸温 का वा勸支 勸支ायर कर쮵े 化䦼वं उल्टे भኚᮌस)쮵ा 化䦼वं ्ቚय滊斁ग कर अप쮵ी ओछी मा쮵जिसकता क滊斁 勸支शा)या है롟꽣 उ्ቤेख쮵ीय है किक इण्टरमी湲岘ड化䦼ट 化䦼क्ट क溍敽 धारा 21 व 22 勸支ा湲岘यኚᮌव कि쮵व)ह쮵 हेतु उठा化䦼 ग化䦼 क勸支म या काय) के लिल化䦼 किकसी न्यायालय म꾔껥 वा勸支 क滊斁 ्ቚ湲岘तबं湲岘धत करती हᬯᯒ롟꽣 आका अल्प ्ሺा쮵 ही आपक滊斁 उ勸支ण्ड ब쮵ा쮵े का ्ቚेरक है롟꽣" इण्टरमी湲岘ड化䦼ट 化䦼क्ट के कि쮵न्勸支ा करती हू ्ቚाकिवधा쮵尸温 के 쮵ाते 14. In above circumstances and considering conduct of petitioner of not informing about her extension to check answer copy and use of threatening language, the Court is of considered opinion that there is no ground to cause interference with the adverse entry, therefore, any claim of petitioner for consideration even on notional basis after her retirement could not be considered. 6 ं 15. Court also takes note of dispute about number of posts available for promotional quota, however, since there is categorical denial from the State, therefore, on basis of a document which was produced for the first time by way of rejoinder affidavit of the year 2007 could not be considered a basis to grant relief to petitioner. 16. Otherwise also, since Court has already returned a finding that there is no ground to interfere with an adverse entry, therefore, even there were four posts for promotional quota, petitioner's claim cannot be considered for promotion due to her adverse entry. 17. In view of above, petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed. Order Date :- February 19, 2025 Sinha_N. [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 7