# Anees Kumar Hajela v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 925
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-07-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45956 of 2008
- **Bench:** Sunil Hali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anees-kumar-hajela-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42222
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226appointment
of
Principle
and
other
teachers-recognized by U.P. Education
Board-unaided institution-managed by
U.P.
State
Electricity
Board-certain
vacancy advertised by Electricity Board
initiating selection process-questioned
held-once institution recognized by U.P.
Education Board only U.P. Secondary
Education Service Selection Board 1982empowered for such exercise-U.p. Rajya
Vidyut
Parishad
Shiksha
Sewa
Viniyamawali has no application.

Held: Para 12

It is trite law that that in order to
establish an educational institution in
the State of UP which are non aided in
their character is regulated by the
Intermediate Education Act 1921. When
the Electricity Board seeks recognition of
its institution under the provisions of U.
P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 it
binds itself with the conditions of the
recognition and the provisions of the Act
under which it seeks recognition. Once
the institution becomes a recognised
institution,
the
provisions
of
U.
P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 will be
applicable. It is admitted case of the
parties that the Board has sought
recognition of the Institution under the
Act as such it is deemed to be recognised
Institution. Since the recognition has
been granted under the Act of 1921 the
Board cannot escape the consequence of
the Act and rules framed therein.
Case law discussed:
1998 (1) AWC 681

## Text

2 All] Anees Kumar Hajela V. State of U.P. and others
925
Court/forum/authority independently in
accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL HALI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45956 of 2008

Anees Kumar Hajela

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C.Singh
Sri Arun Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C. S. C.
Sri M.Tripathi,
Sri Neeraj Tiwari
Sri P. K. Tripathi

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226appointment
of
Principle
and
other
teachers-recognized by U.P. Education
Board-unaided institution-managed by
U.P.
State
Electricity
Board-certain
vacancy advertised by Electricity Board
initiating selection process-questioned
held-once institution recognized by U.P.
Education Board only U.P. Secondary
Education Service Selection Board 1982empowered for such exercise-U.p. Rajya
Vidyut
Parishad
Shiksha
Sewa
Viniyamawali has no application.

Held: Para 12

It is trite law that that in order to
establish an educational institution in
the State of UP which are non aided in
their character is regulated by the
Intermediate Education Act 1921. When
the Electricity Board seeks recognition of
its institution under the provisions of U.
P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 it
binds itself with the conditions of the
recognition and the provisions of the Act
under which it seeks recognition. Once
the institution becomes a recognised
institution,
the
provisions
of
U.
P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 will be
applicable. It is admitted case of the
parties that the Board has sought
recognition of the Institution under the
Act as such it is deemed to be recognised
Institution. Since the recognition has
been granted under the Act of 1921 the
Board cannot escape the consequence of
the Act and rules framed therein.
Case law discussed:
1998 (1) AWC 681

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Hali, J.)

1. All the aforesaid writ petitions
raise common questions of facts and law
and hence for convenience they are
being disposed of by a common order.

2. U.P. State Electricity Board
Inter College, Parichha (hereinafter
referred
as
an
Institution)
is
an
Intermediate College run and managed
by U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad. The
Institution is recognised under the
provisions
of
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act 1921 and the regulations
framed thereunder and the provisions of
U.P. Secondary Education (Services
Selection Board) Act 1982 and the rules
framed therein are applicable. The
Institution does not receive grant from
the State of UP and liability to pay the
salary rest with the U.P. Electricity
Board. It is also not in dispute that the
U.P. Electricity Board is a State within
the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.

3. The dispute in these writ
petitions is as to whether the regulation
framed by the U.P. Electricity Board
under Section 79(c) of the Electricity
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
(supply) Act 1948 will govern the
service conditions of the teachers who
stands appointed in the Institution
established by the UP Electricity Board
or under Act of 1921.

4. The dispute arose when on
account of vacancy which arose on the
post of Principal which was required to
be filled up from amongst the eligible
senior most lecturer working in the
Institution.

5.

An
advertisement
dated
17.1.2007 was issued by the Company
Secretary of the Board for making
selection to the various posts including
the post of Principal in the Institution. It
seems that no selection process was
undertaken after advertisement notice
and the present petitioner was allowed
to continue on the post of the Principal
on adhoc basis.

6. It is contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the power
to make selection vests with the
respondent no. 4 i.e. UP Secondary
Education Service Selection Board. It is
the only power of appointment which
vests with the respondent no. 5 & 6.
Selection process is to be undertaken by
the respondent no. 4 and on its
recommendation appointment orders are
required to be issued. Respondents no. 5
& 6 have no competence either to issue
advertisement or to initiate the selection
process for making such appointment.

7. In this behalf reliance has been
placed by the petitioner on U.P.
Secondary
Education
(Services
Selection Board) Act 1982. The intent
and purpose of promulgating this Act
was
to
constitute
the
secondary
education Commission at the State level
to select lecturers and teachers in the
institutions
recognised
under
the
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921.
Section 10 of the Act of 1982 provides
procedure
of
selection
by
direct
recruitment. Under Section 11 the Board
as soon as may be after the vacancy is
notified under sub section (1) of Section
10 hold examination, where necessary
and interview of the candidates and
prepare a panel of those found most
suitable for appointment. Selection shall
be
conducted
by
the
Selection
Committee constituted under the Act.
Section 16 of the Act clearly envisages
that every appointment of a teacher shall
on or after the date of commencement of
the UP Secondary Education Services
Selection Board (Amendment) Act 2001
be made by the Management only on the
recommendation of the Board. Thus any
selection process undertaken for making
appointment in the Institution has to be
done in consonance with the Act of
1982. Advertisement notice issued by
the respondents is de-horse the rules as
they do not have competence to make
the appointment of teachers/staffs in the
Institution even though they are being
run and managed by the U.P. Rajya
Vidyut Parishad.

8. On the other hand stand of the
respondents is that under Section 79 (c)
of the Electricity Supply Act 1948 the
Board
is
empowered
to
make
regulations for the duties of officers and
other employees of the Board, and their
salaries,
allowances
and
other
conditions of service. In the light of this
Regulation 95 has been issued in the
year
1995
and
thus
the
service
conditions of the teachers of the
concerned 'College' is governed by the
2 All] Anees Kumar Hajela V. State of U.P. and others
927
U.P. Rajya Vidhut Parishad Shikshak
Sewa Viniyamawali, 1995 (hereinafter
referred to as the 1995 Viniyamawali).

9.

Empowered
under
the
regulations, advertisement notice was
issued for the purposes of filling up the
vacancies which had fallen vacant in the
Institution run by the Board. It is stated
that the teachers working in the
Institution established by the Board are
employees of the Board as such their
service conditions will be regulated by
1995 Regulation.

10. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on
record.

11. There is no dispute that the
Institution has been established by the
Board and the employees borne on the
strength are paid from the funds of the
Board. They are not receiving any grant
in aid from the State Government. It is
also not in dispute that the Board is an
Instrumentality of the State and by way
of peripheral activity it has established
various schools and colleges basically
for imparting education to the children
of the employees of the Electricity
Board and are run and managed by the
Board. The Principal and teachers
including employees of these schools
were throughout employees of the U. P.
State
Electricity
Board
and
their
services
are
governed
by
the
Regulations framed by the Board in
exercise of powers conferred by Section
79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act,
1948. The Board framed rules known as
U. P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Shikshak
Sewa Viniyamawali, 1995 which is a
complete Code dealing with all aspects
in regard to the teachers including
recruitment, service conditions, etc.

12. It is trite law that that in order
to establish an educational institution in
the State of UP which are non aided in
their character is regulated by the
Intermediate Education Act 1921. When
the Electricity Board seeks recognition
of its institution under the provisions of
U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
it binds itself with the conditions of the
recognition and the provisions of the
Act under which it seeks recognition.
Once
the
institution
becomes
a
recognised institution, the provisions of
U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
will be applicable. It is admitted case of
the parties that the Board has sought
recognition of the Institution under the
Act as such it is deemed to be
recognised
Institution.
Since
the
recognition has been granted under the
Act of 1921 the Board cannot escape the
consequence of the Act and rules
framed therein.

13.

Thus,
every
recognised
Institution has to act in accordance with
the provisions of U.P. Intermediate
Education Act 1921 except which is
covered by Section 16 H of the 1921
Act. Section 16H grants exemption of
certain classes of institutions from the
operation of certain sections. It provides
that the provisions of Sections 16A,
16B, 16C : sub-sections (2) to subsection (13) of Section 16D and
Sections 16E or 16F and 16G shall not
apply
to
recognised
institutions
maintained by the State Government or
the Central Government. Sub-section (2)
provides that in the case of recognised
institutions maintained by a local body,
the State Government may declare that
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
all or any of the provisions referred to in
subsection (1) shall not apply or shall
apply
subject
to
such
alteration,
modifications or additions as it may
make and the provisions, if any, so
made applicable, shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for
the time being in force.

14. Electricity Board is neither the
State Government nor the Central
Government and it is not covered by
sub-section (1) of Section 16H of the
Act. It has also not been declared as
Local Body under sub-section (2) of
Section 16H of the Act. Reliance has
been placed on the decision of this
Court reported in 1998 (1) AWC 681,
Smt Satyawati Verma Vs U.P. State
Electricity
Board
and
another,
wherein it has been held as under:

"Thus every recognised institution
has to act in accordance with the
provisions
of
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act except where it is
covered by the exception given under
Section 16H of the Act. It leaves no
room for any further controversy. The
terms and conditions of service of
employees
of
all
the
recognised
institutions will be the same as provided
under the Act and Regulations framed
under the Act.

A Division Bench of this Court in
Brahm Dayal v. Senior Personnel
Executive,
Indian
Drugs
and
Pharmaceuticals (1990) 3 UPLBEC
1570,
held
that
the
institution
maintained
by
Indian
Drugs
and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Is neither State nor
Central Government. The institution run
by it having recognised under the
provisions
of
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, the age of retirement of
its
emoloyees
employees
will
be
governed by Regulation 21 of Chapter
III of the Regulations framed under the
Act and not on the basis of contract
entered into by I.D.P.L. with its
employees of the institution. In Km.
Shamim Fatima v. Manager, B.V.M.
School, 1994 HVD (All) IV 143, where
the institution was recognised under the
provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act,
it was held that the age of retirement
will be 60 years as provided under the
U.P.
Basic
Education
(Teachers'
Service) Rules. 1981 end not on the
basis of contract entered into with the
Electricity Board.

Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the
Regulations framed under the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act provides
that the age of superannuation of the
Principal or Head Master, Matron,
Teacher, Clerk or Librarian and other
servants shall be 60 years and if the date
of superannuation falls within the midsession, it shall extend to the end of the
session.
This
provision
will
be
applicable in respect of recognised
institution of U.P. Electricity Board and
Regulation 37 of U.P. Rajya Vidyut
Parishad Shikshak Viniyamavali, 1995
will not be applicable. Such provisions
will be applicable when the Board has
not taken recognition of the institution
under
the
provisions
of
U.P,
Intermediate Education Act, 1921."

15. Thus, in view of aforesaid
discussion, it clearly emerges that the
regulation framed in terms of Act of
1921 will govern the recruitment and
selection process of the employees
working in the Institution run by the
2 All] Dr. Harihar Upadhyay V. State of U.P. and others
929
Board.
Statutory
regulation
framed
under the Act of 1948 would only
operate in case no recognition is sought
by the Institution run by the Board from
the State Government.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, the writ
petitions are allowed. Impugned orders
are hereby quashed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59785 of 2010

Dr. Harihar Upadhyay

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.P. Pandey
Sri J.P. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India,Article 226-interest
for delay-in payment of arrears of salaryunreasonable delay of 10 years in
payment
of
Rs.
1,55,000
and
Rs.
8,34000/-delay of 4 years-unexplained
delay-held-petitioner entitled for 10 %
interest payable within four month-in
case of default 18 % per annum shall be
paid.

Held: Para 6

In the absence of there being adequate
explanation for the delay in payment of
amount due to the petitioner, we are of
the view that this writ petition deserves
to be allowed and the petitioner would
be entitled to payment of interest for the
delayed period in view of the fact that
the petitioner has been un-necessarily
dragged into litigation and he was
compelled to file several petitions also
before this Court as well as before the
Tribunal and it was only then that
payments were made and that too
without interest and without there being
any reason for delay in payment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. This is an unfortunate case where
a retired employee has to run from pillar
to post for payment of the amount for
which he is entitled to be paid. After
several round of litigation, the petitioner
has been paid the amount but with much
delay and, thus, this writ petition has
been filed with a prayer for a direction to
the respondents to pay interest at the rate
of 18% per annum for the delayed
payment.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are
that the petitioner, who is a medical
officer in the Ayurvedic Department of
the State, was placed under suspension
on
9.4.1996
in
contemplation
of
departmental enquiry. The said order of
suspension
was
challenged
by
the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.16103 of
1996 in which interim order was passed
on 6.5.1996, staying the suspension of
the petitioner. Despite that the petitioner
was neither reinstated in service nor paid
his salary. It was only on 4.6.1998, the
State Government took a decision to
reinstate the petitioner in service but a
censure entry was given to the petitioner.
It was further stipulated in the order of
reinstatement that the decision with
regard to payment of difference of salary
and the suspension allowance would be
taken separately. When no decision was
taken by the respondents for payment of