High Court · 2025

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1078 of 2024 Appellant :- State of U.P. and 2 Others Respondent :- Rakesh and 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Ratan Deep Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 in the present special appeal are the writ petitioners who had challenged an order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi dated 16.1.2019, terminating the appointment of the writ petitioners. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has quashed the order of termination. Aggrieved by such order, the State is before us.

2. It is undisputed that the Institution in question is a recognised Junior High School and the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1978'). Procedure for appointment of Assistant Teacher is statutorily prescribed. As per such procedure, the vacancy has to be intimated to the District Basic Education Officer who has to grant his permission, whereafter the recruitment can commence. The vacancy is to be advertised in two newspapers, one of which must have circulation throughout the State whereas the other should be a local newspaper. The Selection Committee has to be constituted with a nominee of the District Basic Education Officer. Thereafter, the appointment requires approval of the District Basic Education Officer. The above scheme was scrupulously followed and the District Basic Education Officer not only granted permission to fill up the posts but also sent his nominee who had participated in the Selection Committee and the appointment of the writ petitioner was approved in the year 2016.

3. Such appointment was questioned by a complainant on the ground that one of the newspapers, in which the vacancy in question was advertised was not having sufficient circulation in the area. Initially, the payment of salary to writ petitioners was stopped. They have later been terminated.

4. Undisputedly, the two newspapers, in which the vacancy was advertised are Janvarta and Jan Sandesh Times. Janvarta is a daily newspaper having circulation throughout the State whereas Jan Sandesh Times is a local newspaper. In the writ petition, it was asserted that other appointments made in the Institution, where the vacancies were published in the local news paper, have been accepted. Rule 7 (1) of Rules, 1978, which prescribes the advertisement of vacancy reads as under : "7. Advertisement of vacancy.- (1) No vacancy shall be filled, except after its advertisement in at least two newspapers one of whom must have adequate circulation all over the State and the other in a locality the school is situated."

5. Learned Single Judge has returned a categorical finding that the publication of vacancy was in accordance with the statutory requirement. Paragraph 7 to 10 of the judgment of learned Single Judge containing the finding in favour of the writ petitioners are reproduced hereunder : "7. It is not in dispute that after completing the due process of advertisement as well as selection, the petitioners were found successful candidate of the advertised post and thereafter letter was forwarded by the committee of management to the District Basic Education Officer for its approval, who has approved the same vide letter dated 31.7.2016 and thereafter the petitioners had joined and their salaried were paid but the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 6.8.2018 has withdrawn its approval order dated 31.7.2016, against which the petitioners have filed a writ petition, which was allowed with direction to the respondent authority to decide the issue, afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

8. It is further not in dispute that advertisement of the said post have been published in two daily newspapers namely Jan Sandesh Times and Janvarta.

9. In para 24 of the writ petition, it has been specifically mentioned that an advertisement for the appointment of Assistant Teacher in Shiv Durgeshwar Purb Madhyamic Vidyaya, Aswari Kunwar Varanasi was made on 22.6.2016 in Jan Sandesh Times and same has been treated as valid advertisement. Further another advertisement was published on 31.7.2016 in Jan Sandesh Times for the appointment of the post of Assistant Teacher in Purvottar Railway Junior High School, New Loco Colony, Chhittupur, Varansi, which was also treated as valid advertisement by the Joint Director of Education, (Women) Allahabad. The inquiry report in respect of the said advertisements is filed as Annexure No. 13 of this writ petition. However in the counter affidavit, it has been stated that contents of paragraph 24 the writ petition are the matter of record and has not denied the same.

10. Therefore, the State cannot be permitted to adopt two different policies in the similar circumstance of the case. Once the advertisement made in Jan Sandesh Times Daily newspaper in the other case has been treated as valid, the appointment of the petitioners cannot be cancelled on this ground. The respondent authorities had taken two different views in respect of the advertisement made in Jan Sandesh Times Daily newspaper of its wide circulation without bringing any cogent material on record in order to justify the same. Therefore, the impugned order is not justified in the eyes of law."

6. Though learned State Counsel submits that the publication was not in accordance with Rule 7 of Rules 1978, but we are not persuaded by such argument inasmuch as it is not shown that out of two newspapers, one was not having circulation throughout the State and the other was having circulation in the area itself. In the facts of the case, we otherwise find that the appointment of the writ petitioners was approved and salary was also paid to them for nearly two years before the issue was raised by the complainant. The qualification of writ petitioners and also their satisfactory working is otherwise not questioned.

7. In such circumstances, the judgment of learned Single Judge warrants no interference. The special appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 DKS DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1078 of 2024 Appellant :- State of U.P. and 2 Others Respondent :- Rakesh and 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Ratan Deep Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 in the present special appeal are the writ petitioners who had challenged an order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi dated 16.1.2019, terminating the appointment of the writ petitioners. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has quashed the order of termination. Aggrieved by such order, the State is before us.

2. It is undisputed that the Institution in question is a recognised Junior High School and the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1978'). Procedure for appointment of Assistant Teacher is statutorily prescribed. As per such procedure, the vacancy has to be intimated to the District Basic Education Officer who has to grant his permission, whereafter the recruitment can commence. The vacancy is to be advertised in two newspapers, one of which must have circulation throughout the State whereas the other should be a local newspaper. The Selection Committee has to be constituted with a nominee of the District Basic Education Officer. Thereafter, the appointment requires approval of the District Basic Education Officer. The above scheme was scrupulously followed and the District Basic Education Officer not only granted permission to fill up the posts but also sent his nominee who had participated in the Selection Committee and the appointment of the writ petitioner was approved in the year 2016.

3. Such appointment was questioned by a complainant on the ground that one of the newspapers, in which the vacancy in question was advertised was not having sufficient circulation in the area. Initially, the payment of salary to writ petitioners was stopped. They have later been terminated.

4. Undisputedly, the two newspapers, in which the vacancy was advertised are Janvarta and Jan Sandesh Times. Janvarta is a daily newspaper having circulation throughout the State whereas Jan Sandesh Times is a local newspaper. In the writ petition, it was asserted that other appointments made in the Institution, where the vacancies were published in the local news paper, have been accepted. Rule 7 (1) of Rules, 1978, which prescribes the advertisement of vacancy reads as under : "7. Advertisement of vacancy.- (1) No vacancy shall be filled, except after its advertisement in at least two newspapers one of whom must have adequate circulation all over the State and the other in a locality the school is situated."

5. Learned Single Judge has returned a categorical finding that the publication of vacancy was in accordance with the statutory requirement. Paragraph 7 to 10 of the judgment of learned Single Judge containing the finding in favour of the writ petitioners are reproduced hereunder : "7. It is not in dispute that after completing the due process of advertisement as well as selection, the petitioners were found successful candidate of the advertised post and thereafter letter was forwarded by the committee of management to the District Basic Education Officer for its approval, who has approved the same vide letter dated 31.7.2016 and thereafter the petitioners had joined and their salaried were paid but the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 6.8.2018 has withdrawn its approval order dated 31.7.2016, against which the petitioners have filed a writ petition, which was allowed with direction to the respondent authority to decide the issue, afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

8. It is further not in dispute that advertisement of the said post have been published in two daily newspapers namely Jan Sandesh Times and Janvarta.

9. In para 24 of the writ petition, it has been specifically mentioned that an advertisement for the appointment of Assistant Teacher in Shiv Durgeshwar Purb Madhyamic Vidyaya, Aswari Kunwar Varanasi was made on 22.6.2016 in Jan Sandesh Times and same has been treated as valid advertisement. Further another advertisement was published on 31.7.2016 in Jan Sandesh Times for the appointment of the post of Assistant Teacher in Purvottar Railway Junior High School, New Loco Colony, Chhittupur, Varansi, which was also treated as valid advertisement by the Joint Director of Education, (Women) Allahabad. The inquiry report in respect of the said advertisements is filed as Annexure No. 13 of this writ petition. However in the counter affidavit, it has been stated that contents of paragraph 24 the writ petition are the matter of record and has not denied the same.

10. Therefore, the State cannot be permitted to adopt two different policies in the similar circumstance of the case. Once the advertisement made in Jan Sandesh Times Daily newspaper in the other case has been treated as valid, the appointment of the petitioners cannot be cancelled on this ground. The respondent authorities had taken two different views in respect of the advertisement made in Jan Sandesh Times Daily newspaper of its wide circulation without bringing any cogent material on record in order to justify the same. Therefore, the impugned order is not justified in the eyes of law."

6. Though learned State Counsel submits that the publication was not in accordance with Rule 7 of Rules 1978, but we are not persuaded by such argument inasmuch as it is not shown that out of two newspapers, one was not having circulation throughout the State and the other was having circulation in the area itself. In the facts of the case, we otherwise find that the appointment of the writ petitioners was approved and salary was also paid to them for nearly two years before the issue was raised by the complainant. The qualification of writ petitioners and also their satisfactory working is otherwise not questioned.

7. In such circumstances, the judgment of learned Single Judge warrants no interference. The special appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 DKS DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad