HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD v. Counsel for
Case Details
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent-authorities take decision regarding approval of appointment of petitioners and pay the salary within stipulated period as may be specified by this Court. B. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. C. To allow the present writ petition with cost."
3. In a similar controversy, Writ-A No. 12958 of 2019 was filed before this Court, by which order dated 03.07.2025 dismissed the petition, observing as follows:- "List is revised. None appears for the petitioner. Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State is present. Perused the record. Record shows that the petition has been preferred for quashing of order dated 10.07.2019, passed by respondent no. 3 - District Basic Education Officer, Mau, whereby representation of the petitioner for the grant of approval on the post of Clerk has been rejected. Further prayer has been sought for a direction to grant approval for the payment of salary to the petitioner since the date of his appointment i.e. 2 WRIA No. 14923 of 2025
06.07.2016, along with payment of arrears and regular salary. As per the facts narrated in the writ petition, one post of clerk fell vacant at Sriram Chandra Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Amari, Disrict Mau which is a recognized institution up to Class-VIII and is also included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government up to the said standard. The District Basic Education / respondent no. 3 by order dated 23.01.2016 granted approval to the Institution to fill up the vacant post of clerk in accordance with the relevant rules. By the said order, approval for filling up the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in the Institution was also accorded. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was made in two daily newspapers, inviting applications for two posts of Assistant Teachers and one post of Clerk, as required under law. Sri Birbal Ram, Block Education Officer, Block Kopaganj, Mau, was deputed by respondent no. 3 as a member of Selection Committee constituted for the purposes of selection on the vacant posts in the Institution. The petitioner, being eligible for the post of clerk applied and after facing interview he was declared as a selected candidate as he obtained higher marks than other candidates and appeared in the interview. A report was sent by the Block Education Officer who was deputed by respondent no. 3 as a member of selection committee, on 03.07.2016 informing that the petitioner was found a suitable candidate for the post of clerk by the selection committee. A certificate was issued by the Committee of Management of the Institution declaring that the petitioner is not a relative of any member of the Committee, Manager or Headmaster of the Institution. Appointment letter was accordingly issued by the Committee of Management in favour of the petitioner, pursuant thereto he joined in the Institution on the post of clerk on 06.07.2016. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite working on the said post, no payment of salary has yet been made as the approval for payment of salary was not granted by the District Basic Education Officer. In that regard, several representations were moved but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5175 of 2019, Vikas Srivastava v. State of U.P. & others, which was disposed of by order dated 05.04.2019 directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance of the said order, the order impugned has been passed rejecting the claim of petitioner in an arbitrary and mechanical manner. Grounds taken in the writ petition is that despite the selection of the petitioner made on the post of clerk after following due procedure of law, as required under the relevant rules, approval for payment of salary has not been granted by respondent no. 3 for no reason. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Institution in question is a recognized and aided institution and the payment of salary of teaching and non-teaching staff, who are appointed in accordance with law, is paid by the State exchequer. The procedure 3 WRIA No. 14923 of 2025 which is required to be followed for the appointment of clerk in the said Institution has not been adhered to by the Management as no prior approval was obtained from respondent no. 3 for appointment on the said post and the advertisement was published in contravention with the procedure prescribed by Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees Service) Rules,
1984. It is next contended that the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner was in violation of Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules, 1984. The appointment of the petitioner was illegal, therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned. Learned Standing Counsel further pointed out that Class-III & IV employees in privately managed recognized Junior High Schools were not required, therefore, the posts were abolished by declaring it as a dead-cadre. Said controversy was decided by this Hon'ble Court in Writ-A No. 5418 of 2019, C/M Manorama Kanya Junior High School, Moradabad and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others, whereby the Court by order dated 24.09.2021 allowed the petition directing that the Government Order dated
02.07.1990, by which the posts in Class III & IV cadre were sanctioned, shall continue to exist and it was left open to the private management to make appointments against it by following procedure as laid down in the Rules, 1984. Said order was challenged by means of Special Appeal i.e. Special Appeal Defective No. 147 of 2020, State of U.P. and 2 others v. Commitee of Management Shri Sarveshwari Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Bangaon and another, wherein the effect and operation of the order passed in Writ-A No. 5418 of 2019 has been stayed on 11.12.2024. He further submits that, though this ground has not been taken by the petitioner, as is evident from the records of the case, but in view of the order passed by Special Appeal Court, the claim of the petitioner has no legs to stand. In view of the above, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs."
4. However, in case the petitioners make fresh applications/representations, ventilating all their grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.3; District Basic Education Officer, District-Azamgarh, within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, the respondent no.3 shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the aforesaid observations, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal 4 WRIA No. 14923 of 2025 impediment.
5. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. October 6, 2025 Rahul. (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent-authorities take decision regarding approval of appointment of petitioners and pay the salary within stipulated period as may be specified by this Court. B. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. C. To allow the present writ petition with cost."
3. In a similar controversy, Writ-A No. 12958 of 2019 was filed before this Court, by which order dated 03.07.2025 dismissed the petition, observing as follows:- "List is revised. None appears for the petitioner. Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State is present. Perused the record. Record shows that the petition has been preferred for quashing of order dated 10.07.2019, passed by respondent no. 3 - District Basic Education Officer, Mau, whereby representation of the petitioner for the grant of approval on the post of Clerk has been rejected. Further prayer has been sought for a direction to grant approval for the payment of salary to the petitioner since the date of his appointment i.e. 2 WRIA No. 14923 of 2025
06.07.2016, along with payment of arrears and regular salary. As per the facts narrated in the writ petition, one post of clerk fell vacant at Sriram Chandra Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Amari, Disrict Mau which is a recognized institution up to Class-VIII and is also included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government up to the said standard. The District Basic Education / respondent no. 3 by order dated 23.01.2016 granted approval to the Institution to fill up the vacant post of clerk in accordance with the relevant rules. By the said order, approval for filling up the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in the Institution was also accorded. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was made in two daily newspapers, inviting applications for two posts of Assistant Teachers and one post of Clerk, as required under law. Sri Birbal Ram, Block Education Officer, Block Kopaganj, Mau, was deputed by respondent no. 3 as a member of Selection Committee constituted for the purposes of selection on the vacant posts in the Institution. The petitioner, being eligible for the post of clerk applied and after facing interview he was declared as a selected candidate as he obtained higher marks than other candidates and appeared in the interview. A report was sent by the Block Education Officer who was deputed by respondent no. 3 as a member of selection committee, on 03.07.2016 informing that the petitioner was found a suitable candidate for the post of clerk by the selection committee. A certificate was issued by the Committee of Management of the Institution declaring that the petitioner is not a relative of any member of the Committee, Manager or Headmaster of the Institution. Appointment letter was accordingly issued by the Committee of Management in favour of the petitioner, pursuant thereto he joined in the Institution on the post of clerk on 06.07.2016. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite working on the said post, no payment of salary has yet been made as the approval for payment of salary was not granted by the District Basic Education Officer. In that regard, several representations were moved but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5175 of 2019, Vikas Srivastava v. State of U.P. & others, which was disposed of by order dated 05.04.2019 directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance of the said order, the order impugned has been passed rejecting the claim of petitioner in an arbitrary and mechanical manner. Grounds taken in the writ petition is that despite the selection of the petitioner made on the post of clerk after following due procedure of law, as required under the relevant rules, approval for payment of salary has not been granted by respondent no. 3 for no reason. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Institution in question is a recognized and aided institution and the payment of salary of teaching and non-teaching staff, who are appointed in accordance with law, is paid by the State exchequer. The procedure 3 WRIA No. 14923 of 2025 which is required to be followed for the appointment of clerk in the said Institution has not been adhered to by the Management as no prior approval was obtained from respondent no. 3 for appointment on the said post and the advertisement was published in contravention with the procedure prescribed by Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees Service) Rules,
1984. It is next contended that the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner was in violation of Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules, 1984. The appointment of the petitioner was illegal, therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned. Learned Standing Counsel further pointed out that Class-III & IV employees in privately managed recognized Junior High Schools were not required, therefore, the posts were abolished by declaring it as a dead-cadre. Said controversy was decided by this Hon'ble Court in Writ-A No. 5418 of 2019, C/M Manorama Kanya Junior High School, Moradabad and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others, whereby the Court by order dated 24.09.2021 allowed the petition directing that the Government Order dated
02.07.1990, by which the posts in Class III & IV cadre were sanctioned, shall continue to exist and it was left open to the private management to make appointments against it by following procedure as laid down in the Rules, 1984. Said order was challenged by means of Special Appeal i.e. Special Appeal Defective No. 147 of 2020, State of U.P. and 2 others v. Commitee of Management Shri Sarveshwari Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Bangaon and another, wherein the effect and operation of the order passed in Writ-A No. 5418 of 2019 has been stayed on 11.12.2024. He further submits that, though this ground has not been taken by the petitioner, as is evident from the records of the case, but in view of the order passed by Special Appeal Court, the claim of the petitioner has no legs to stand. In view of the above, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs."
4. However, in case the petitioners make fresh applications/representations, ventilating all their grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.3; District Basic Education Officer, District-Azamgarh, within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, the respondent no.3 shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the aforesaid observations, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal 4 WRIA No. 14923 of 2025 impediment.
5. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. October 6, 2025 Rahul. (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad