# C/M Kunwar Rukum Singh Vaidik Inter College & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1504
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-29
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 7795 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-kunwar-rukum-singh-vaidik-inter-college-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52222
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Seniority
-
U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
-
Regulation 3 of Chapter II - The District
Inspector of Schools has no authority
under provisions of the regulations framed
under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act
or under any other statutory provision to
interfere with the seniority list issued by
the committee of management of the
college or to issue a direction to the
committee of management to issue a fresh
seniority list and to appoint officiating
principal as per the modified seniority list
to be issued as per the directions of the
District Inspector of Schools. (Para 10)

Regulation 3 does not confer any power on
the District Inspector of Schools to interfere
with the seniority list published by the
Committee of Management of any institution.
Regulation 3(1)(f) provides that any person
aggrieved by fixation of his seniority, may file
an
appeal
before
the
Regional
Deputy
Director of Education and the appellate
authority can pass suitable orders in exercise
of his appellate jurisdiction. However, even
the Regional Deputy Director of Education has
not been granted any authority to suo motto
interfere with the seniority list issued by the
Committee
of
Management
under
the
provisions of Regulation 3(1) of Chapter II of
the regulations framed under the Act. (Para
9)

The impugned orders dated 27.03.2024 and
15.04.2024 are unsustainable in law. (Para 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

The present writ petition challenges the
validity of an orders dated 27.03.2024 and
15.04.2024,
passed
by
the
District
Inspector of Schools, Badaun, rejecting
the seniority list of Lecturers in the
petitioners' institution, prepared by the
petitioners and directing them to issue a
fresh seniority list as per the earlier
seniority list published by the petitioners
in the year 2020-21 and directing the
petitioners to hand over charge of the
post
of
Principal,
failing
which
the
proceedings
will
be
initiated
for
superseding the managing committee of
the college, respectively.

## Text

1504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1504
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-A No. 7795 of 2024

C/M Kunwar Rukum Singh Vaidik Inter
College & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Prabhakar Awasthi, Suresh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shivendra Bahadur Singh

A.
Service
Law
-
Seniority
-
U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
-
Regulation 3 of Chapter II - The District
Inspector of Schools has no authority
under provisions of the regulations framed
under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act
or under any other statutory provision to
interfere with the seniority list issued by
the committee of management of the
college or to issue a direction to the
committee of management to issue a fresh
seniority list and to appoint officiating
principal as per the modified seniority list
to be issued as per the directions of the
District Inspector of Schools. (Para 10)

Regulation 3 does not confer any power on
the District Inspector of Schools to interfere
with the seniority list published by the
Committee of Management of any institution.
Regulation 3(1)(f) provides that any person
aggrieved by fixation of his seniority, may file
an
appeal
before
the
Regional
Deputy
Director of Education and the appellate
authority can pass suitable orders in exercise
of his appellate jurisdiction. However, even
the Regional Deputy Director of Education has
not been granted any authority to suo motto
interfere with the seniority list issued by the
Committee
of
Management
under
the
provisions of Regulation 3(1) of Chapter II of
the regulations framed under the Act. (Para
9)

The impugned orders dated 27.03.2024 and
15.04.2024 are unsustainable in law. (Para 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

The present writ petition challenges the
validity of an orders dated 27.03.2024 and
15.04.2024,
passed
by
the
District
Inspector of Schools, Badaun, rejecting
the seniority list of Lecturers in the
petitioners' institution, prepared by the
petitioners and directing them to issue a
fresh seniority list as per the earlier
seniority list published by the petitioners
in the year 2020-21 and directing the
petitioners to hand over charge of the
post
of
Principal,
failing
which
the
proceedings
will
be
initiated
for
superseding the managing committee of
the college, respectively.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, the
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Shailendra Singh, the learned Standing
Counsel representing the opposite parties
no. 1, 2 & 3 and Sri Manish Kumar holding
brief of Sri Shivendra Bahadur Singh, the
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4.

2. By means of the instant writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitionersCommittee
of
Management,
Kunwar
Rukum Singh Vaidik Inter College, Badaun
and its Manager have challenged validity of
an order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the
District Inspector of Schools, Badaun,
rejecting the seniority list of Lecturers in
the petitioners' institution, prepared by the
petitioners and directing them to issue a
fresh seniority list as per the earlier
seniority list published by the petitioners in
7 All. C/M Kunwar Rukum Singh Vaidik Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1505
the year 2020-21 in furtherance of an order
dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Joint
Director of Education, Bareilly Division,
Bareilly.
The
petitioners
have
also
challenged validity of an order dated
15.04.2024 passed by the District Inspector
of
Schools,
Badaun,
directing
the
petitioners to hand over charge of the post
of Principal to the opposite party no. 4,
failing which the proceedings will be
initiated for superseding the managing
committee of the college.

3. On the last date, this Court had
passed an order that locus standi of the
petitioners to challenge validity of the
seniority list will be examined by this Court
as the committee of management has
challenged the seniority list and the persons
affected by the impugned order, who would
become junior to the opposite party no. 4
by implementation of the impugned order,
has not come forward to assail validity of
the impugned orders.

4. Regarding locus standi of the
petitioners, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that under the
provisions contained in Regulation 3 of
Chapter II of the Regulations framed under
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 the
Committee of Management has been given
the responsibility to prepare a seniority list
of teachers. Officiating Principals are
appointed in accordance with the seniority
of the teachers.

5. In exercise of powers conferred
by Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the
aforesaid regulations, the petitioners have
fixed seniority of teachers, as per which it
is entitled to appoint the senior-most
teacher Dr. Yogendra Pal as officiating
principal of the college. By the impugned
order, the opposite party no. 3 has directed
the petitioners to issue a fresh seniority list
by placing the opposite party no. 4 at the
senior-most position and hand over the
charge of the principal of the college. This
order would affect the petitioners directly,
as it mandates the petitioners to issue a
fresh seniority list as per the directions
issued by the opposite party no. 3 and to
hand over charge of the post of Principal to
the opposite party no. 4, who is not
otherwise entitled to be appointed as
Principal as per the seniority list issued by
the petitioners.

6. In view of the aforesaid fact,
this Court is of the considered opinion that
the petitioners are affected by the impugned
orders and they have the locus standi to
challenge the same by filing a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

7. Accordingly, I proceed to
examine the merits of the writ petition.

8. The petitioners have published a
seniority list of teachers for the year 202324, which has been disapproved by the
District Inspector of Schools. The relevant
provision,
which
is
contained
under
Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is being
reproduced below:-

"3. (1) The Committee of
Management of every institution
shall cause a seniority list of
teachers
to
be
prepared
in
accordance with the following
provisions-
(a) The seniority list shall
be prepared separately for each
grade
of
teachers
whether
permanent or temporary, on any
substantive post;
1506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(b) Seniority of teachers in
a grade shall be determined on the
basis
of
their
substantive
appointment in that grade. If two or
more teachers were so appointed on
the same date, seniority shall be
determined on the basis of age;
[(bb) Where two or more
teachers working in a grade are
promoted to the next higher grade
on the same date, their seniority
inter se shall be determined on the
basis of the length of their service
to be reckoned from the date of
their substantive appointment in the
grade
from
which
they
are
promoted:
Provided that if such length
of service is equal, seniority shall
be determined on the basis of age.]
(c) A teacher in a higher
grade shall be deemed to be senior
to a teacher in the lower grade
irrespective
of
the
length
of
service:
(d) If a teacher who is
placed
under
suspension
is
reinstated on his original post his
original seniority in the grade shall
not be affected;
(e) Every dispute about the
seniority of the teacher shall be
referred to the Committee of
Management which shall decide the
same
giving
reasons
for
the
decision;

[(f) उपखण्ड (ङ) के अधीन प्रबधध
सहमहत के हिहनिय से व्यहथत कोई अध्य पक ऐस
हिहनिय ऐसे अध्य पक को सूहचत हकये ज ने के हदन ांक
से 15 हदन के िीतर सम्बहधधत क्षेत्ीय उप-हशक्ष
हनदेशक को अपीि कर सकत िै. और अपीि पर
सम्बहधधत पक्षों को सुनि ई क अिसर देने के उपर धत
उप हशक्ष हनदेशक अपन हनणुय क रण सहित देग , जो
अहधतम िोग और प्रबधध सहमहत द्व र क य ुहधित हकय
ज येग ।"]
[g) यहद एक ग्रेड में क युरत दो य
अहधक अध्य पक हकसी एक िी हतहथ पर पदोधनहत
हकए ज एाँ तो उनकी ज्येष्ठत क आध र उस ग्रेड क
सेि क ि िोग , हजसमें िे क युरत थे, परधतु यहद
सेि क ि बर बर िै, तो पदोधनहत को दश में आयु के
आध र पर ज्येष्ठत हनध ुररत की ज येगी।
(2) The seniority list shall
be revised every year and the
provisions of Clause (1) shall
mutatis mutandis apply to such
revision."

9. Regulation 3 does not confer
any power on the District Inspector of
Schools to interfere with the seniority list
published
by
the
Committee
of
Management of any institution. Regulation
3(1)(f) provides that any person aggrieved
by fixation of his seniority, may file an
appeal before the Regional Deputy Director
of Education and the appellate authority
can pass suitable orders in exercise of his
appellate jurisdiction. However, even the
Regional Deputy Director of Education has
not been granted any authority to Suo
motto interfere with the seniority list issued
by the Committee of Management under
the provisions of Regulation 3(1) of
Chapter II of the regulations framed under
the Act.

10. In any case, the District
Inspector of Schools has no authority under
provisions of the regulations framed under
the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or
under any other statutory provision to
interfere with the seniority list issued by the
committee of management of the college or
to issue a direction to the committee of
management to issue a fresh seniority list
and to appoint officiating principal as per
the modified seniority list to be issued as
7 All. Udai Narayan Sahu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1507
per the directions of the District Inspector
of Schools.

11. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned orders dated
27.03.2024
and
15.04.2024
are
unsustainable in law.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition
is allowed.

13.

Both
the
orders
dated
27.03.2024 and 15.04.2024 passed by the
District Inspector of Schools, Badaun are
hereby quashed.

14. In case, any person affected by
the seniority list files an appeal under
Regulation 3(1)(f) of Chapter II of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 the same
will be decided in accordance with law,
without
being
influenced
by
any
observations made in this order.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1507
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-A No. 8170 of 2024

Udai Narayan Sahu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Pension - A bare perusal
of the Rules makes it manifest that
deduction towards C.P.F./G.P.F. is not a
condition precedent for eligibility of an
employee for receiving pension. Therefore,
the mere fact that no deduction was made
towards G.P.F. from the salary of the petitioner
would not affect his eligibility to get pension
after his retirement. (Para 15)

The petitioner has expressed his willingness to
pay his contribution towards G.P.F., the reason
for non deduction of General Provident Fund
from the petitioner's salary was that although
the petitioner was in service since the year
2004, initially he was not paid salary and after
he was paid salary in compliance of the order
passed by this Court in Writ A No. 36436 of
2005, the same was not paid from the date of
his initial appointment. The petitioner was
compelled to file another Writ A No. 6461 of
2011 which was allowed with costs on
01.04.2016, after which he was paid salary from
the date of his initial appointment in the year
2004, but he was allotted a G.P.F. account
number only on 03.10.2022, when less
than
six
months
remained
to
his
retirement. The petitioner was not at all
guilty for non deduction of the amount of
G.P.F. contribution from his salary. (Para
16)

B. No person can be made to suffer for a
fault, for which he is not responsible.
Apparently, the petitioner was in no manner
responsible for non allotment of G.P.F. account
number and for non deduction of contribution
towards G.P.F. by the Authority is concerned.
Therefore, he cannot be penalized in any
manner for non deduction of General Provident
Fund for which he is not responsible. (Para 17)

C.
The
Contributory
Provident
Fund
Scheme
was
replaced
by
General
Provident Fund w.r.f 01.03.1977. It does
not apply to any teacher appointed after
31.03.1978, when Contributory Provident
Fund was no more in existence and it had
been substituted by G.P.F. Scheme. As the
petitioner was appointed in the year 2004 i.e.
much after the closure of the Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme and its replacement by
the G.P.F. Scheme, the provisions of the
aforesaid GO dated 31.03.1978 are not relevant