# C/M Rahat Janta Inter College & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 791
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-22
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 4914 of 2022
- **Bench:** Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-rahat-janta-inter-college-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51480
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India, Arts. 29, 30, 226
- U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
Ss. 16-FF, 16-D - Regulation 101, Ch. III -
U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection
Board Act, 1982, S. 30 - Minority Institution -
Appointment
of
Clerks
-
Whether
prior
permission of DIOS required - Held, No.
Regulation 101, Ch. III of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act has no mandatory application to
minority institutions. Even if construed as
regulatory, it does not envisage prior approval.
Mere non-obtaining of such permission from
DIOS cannot vitiate appointments.
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B.
Minority
Educational
Institutions
-
Administrative Autonomy - Scope of St.
Interference.
The St. Government cannot under the guise of
regulation interfere with the administrative
autonomy of a minority educational institution.
Appointment of teaching or non-teaching staff
by a duly constituted Selection Committee of the
Management cannot be annulled by the
authorities except on the ground that the
selected candidate lacks requisite qualifications.

C. U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Ss.
16-FF, 16-D - Scope of scrutiny by DIOS.
Powers of DIOS qua minority institutions are
limited only to verifying whether selected
candidates possess the prescribed qualifications.
Objections relating to prior permission, joint
advertisement or alleged ban on recruitment are
beyond jurisdiction.

D. Principles Reiterated.
(i) Statutory provisions apply to minority
institutions only if expressly made applicable.
(ii)
Once
candidates
fulfill
qualifications,
appointments in minority institutions cannot be
cancelled on administrative objections like
combined advertisement or non-mention of payscale.
(iii) Orders passed without affording opportunity
of hearing are unsustainable.

Held (Paras 17, 18, 20, 21, 26):
- Prior permission under Regulation 101 not
required in case of minority institutions.
- St. authority cannot interfere in method of
appointment of teaching/non-teaching staff of
minority educational institutions.
- DIOS has limited jurisdiction to verify
qualifications only.
- Impugned orders cancelling appointments of
Clerks without hearing petitioners and without
statutory basis, liable to be quashed.

Result: Writ Petition Allowed - Impugned
orders dated 14.03.2022 (Director of Education,
Secondary, Lucknow) and 30.03.2022 (DIOS,
Bahraich) quashed - Matter remitted to DIOS
to decide afresh after hearing petitioners within
4 weeks.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. C/M Rahat Janta Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791
on no other inquiry report, except the
preliminary
inquiry
report
or
some
surreptitious kind of a report that cannot
qualify for valid findings of an inquiry held
in disciplinary proceedings on the foot
whereof a major penalty may be imposed.
Since this Court proposes to quash the
impugned orders with liberty to the
respondents to proceed afresh, if they so
desire, the other issue raised by the
petitioner about violation of Article 351-A
of the Civil Service Regulations, is left
open to be examined, should occasion
arise.

18. The orders impugned in Writ-A
No.12441 of 2023 are consequential to
those impugned in the leading writ petition.
Therefore, the orders impugned in Writ-A
No.12441 of 2023 would fall as well, once
the orders impugned in Writ-A No.4628 of
2023 are quashed.

19. In the result, both the writ
petitions succeed and are allowed. The
impugned order dated 23.02.2023 passed
by the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation
Limited, Lucknow and the order dated
18.01.2022 passed by the Managing
Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited,
Lucknow, are hereby quashed. Unless the
respondents elect to take fresh proceedings
from the stage of the charge-sheet against
the petitioner and pass orders afresh, after
holding an inquiry in accordance with law
and the guidance in this judgment, the
petitioner shall be entitled to receive his
full pension, including arrears and other
post retiral benefits. If fresh proceedings
are taken, the entitlement to receive
pension, including arrears and other post
retiral benefits, not yet paid, will abide by
the result of orders to be made in those
proceedings.

20. The impugned order dated
25.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Chief
Account Officer, Pashchimanchal Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Limited, Meerut and the
order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Chief
Treasury Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar in
Writ-A No.12441 of 2023 are also
quashed. The respondents are restrained
from
recovering
from
the
petitioner
pursuant to the said orders, in any manner.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 791
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ - A No. 4914 of 2022

C/M Rahat Janta Inter College & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ramesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India, Arts. 29, 30, 226
- U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
Ss. 16-FF, 16-D - Regulation 101, Ch. III -
U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection
Board Act, 1982, S. 30 - Minority Institution -
Appointment
of
Clerks
-
Whether
prior
permission of DIOS required - Held, No.
Regulation 101, Ch. III of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act has no mandatory application to
minority institutions. Even if construed as
regulatory, it does not envisage prior approval.
Mere non-obtaining of such permission from
DIOS cannot vitiate appointments.
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B.
Minority
Educational
Institutions
-
Administrative Autonomy - Scope of St.
Interference.
The St. Government cannot under the guise of
regulation interfere with the administrative
autonomy of a minority educational institution.
Appointment of teaching or non-teaching staff
by a duly constituted Selection Committee of the
Management cannot be annulled by the
authorities except on the ground that the
selected candidate lacks requisite qualifications.

C. U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Ss.
16-FF, 16-D - Scope of scrutiny by DIOS.
Powers of DIOS qua minority institutions are
limited only to verifying whether selected
candidates possess the prescribed qualifications.
Objections relating to prior permission, joint
advertisement or alleged ban on recruitment are
beyond jurisdiction.

D. Principles Reiterated.
(i) Statutory provisions apply to minority
institutions only if expressly made applicable.
(ii)
Once
candidates
fulfill
qualifications,
appointments in minority institutions cannot be
cancelled on administrative objections like
combined advertisement or non-mention of payscale.
(iii) Orders passed without affording opportunity
of hearing are unsustainable.

Held (Paras 17, 18, 20, 21, 26):
- Prior permission under Regulation 101 not
required in case of minority institutions.
- St. authority cannot interfere in method of
appointment of teaching/non-teaching staff of
minority educational institutions.
- DIOS has limited jurisdiction to verify
qualifications only.
- Impugned orders cancelling appointments of
Clerks without hearing petitioners and without
statutory basis, liable to be quashed.

Result: Writ Petition Allowed - Impugned
orders dated 14.03.2022 (Director of Education,
Secondary, Lucknow) and 30.03.2022 (DIOS,
Bahraich) quashed - Matter remitted to DIOS
to decide afresh after hearing petitioners within
4 weeks.

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Faizan & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2013 (5) ADJ 471 (All)

2. Jagdish Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2006) 2
UPLBEC 1851

3. St. of U.P. Vs Manager, C/M Islamia Inter
College, 2022 (4) ADJ 531 (DB)

4. T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs St. of Karnataka,
(2002) 8 SCC 481 (Const. Bench)

5. P.A. Inamdar Vs St. of Mah., (2005) 6 SCC
537 (Const. Bench)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,
J.)

A. Introduction

(1) This writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioners with the following
main reliefs :-

i. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned letter dated 14-03-2022 passed
by the opposite party no.2 to the extent of
cancelling the appointment of two post of
Clerk after summoning the original from
the opposite parties.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari, quashing the
impugned order/letter dated 30-03-2022 to
the extent of cancelling the appointment on
the post of Class-III post which is
contained in as Annexure no.1 to the writ
petition.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction
in nature of mandamus, commanding the
opposite parties to approved the two
appointment of Clerk made by the
petitioner's Institution on the basis of
submitting
the
papers
regarding
the
appointment of Class-III post by letter
2 All. C/M Rahat Janta Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793
dated 22-10-2021 which is contained as
Annexure no.15 to the writ petition."

B. Factual Matrix

(2) The facts, in nutshell, are that
Anjuman Talim Dargah is a Society
registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. It is a minority organization and
has established and is presently running
private college, namely, Rahat Janta Inter
College situated at Nanpara, District
Bahraich (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Institution'). The Institution is managed
by a 'Committee of Management (petitioner
no.1)' (for short 'the Management') as per
the
Scheme
of
Administration.
The
institution is an aided private minority
institution
and
is
governed
by
the
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. Petitioner No.2Arshad Khan is said to be the Manager of
the Institution.

(3) It is the case of the petitioners that
in the Institution, there is one sanctioned
post of Principal, 6 sanctioned posts of
Lecturer, 15 sanctioned posts of Assistant
Teacher L.T. Grade, 10 sanctioned posts of
Assistant Teacher C.T. Grade, 3 sanctioned
post of Routine Grade Clerk and 12
sanctioned posts of Peons. According to the
petitioners, the State Government had
issued
a
Government
Order
dated
15.02.2007, providing that in case of
minority institution, no prior permission
from any authority is required before
publication of advertisement for filling up
of vacancies of the approved/sanctioned
post of teachers/lecturers. Again, the State
Government
had
issued
another
Government Order dated 21.08.2014 in
relation to one Smt. Shaista Ali on the post
of Assistant Clerk, wherein the State
Government had relied upon the earlier
Government
Order
dated
12.02.2007,
which specifically stated that in respect of
minority Institution, Section 18 (Cha-Cha)
of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is
applicable
and
further
there
is
no
provisions for taking prior permission or
restriction for minority Institution for
making appointment on Class-III posts.

(4) It has been stated by the
petitioners that after the Government Order
dated
21.08.2014,
the
Director
of
Education
has
issued
a
letter
on
29.10.2014, directing all the District
Inspector of Schools saying that the
Government Order dated 21.08.2014 is
related
to
minority
institution
of
Ashashkiya
Sahayata
Prapt
for
appointment on Class-III post and the
Director of Education has further directed
all the District Inspector of Schools to
proceed on the basis of the Government
Order dated 21.08.2014.

(5) Further case of the petitioner is
that on the basis of Government Orders
dated
15.02.2007,
21.08.2014
and
29.10.2014, petitioners' institution had
advertised three posts of Class-III (Clerk)
and three Class-IV posts on 04.09.2021 in
two newspapers, namely, Rashtriya Sahara
and Daily Shahafat (in Urdu Language). In
pursuance of the said advertisement,
number
of
eligible
candidates
have
submitted requisite applications for the
aforesaid posts. The Manager of the
Institute (petitioner no.2), vide letter dated
21.09.2021, had informed the District
Inspector of Schools regarding the vacancy,
advertisement and other relevant facts.

(6) Apparently, on receipt of the
aforesaid letter dated 21.09.2021, the
District Inspector of Schools, vide letter
dated 23.09.2021, informed the Manager of
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Institution (petitioner no.2) that no prior
permission under Regulation 101 of U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has been
taken and further in respect of Class-IV
posts, there is a process of outsourcing. In
this regard, the District Inspector of
Schools had stopped the interview which
was fixed for 24.09.2021.

(7) It is stated by the petitioner that as
per Government Orders dated 05.02.2007,
21.08.2014 and 29.10.2014, there is no
procedure prescribed for taking prior
permission for appointment from the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
for
appointments on Class-III posts and as
such, the Institution had proceeded with the
interview and the Selection Committee
took interview of the eligible candidates
and the procedure for appointment was
done for two Class-III posts only on
24.09.2021, whereby one Geeta Srivastava,
who got 62.40 marks and one Dilbagh has
got 55.91 marks, were selected. Thereafter,
the Manager of the Institution (petitioner),
in response to the letter of the D.I.O.S.
dated 23.09.2021, has sent a reply letter
dated 13.10.2021, placing reliance upon the
Government Order dated 29.10.2014 and
21.08.2014 stating inter-alia that the
Institution is a minority institution and
provision of Regulation 101 of Chapter-3
of the Intermediate Education Act is not
applicable and as such prayed that
interview, which was held on 24.09.2021,
be legally recognized and the letter dated
23.09.2021 be declared as in-effective.
Subsequently, vide letter dated 22.10.2021,
the Manager of the Institution (petitioner
no.2) has forwarded the necessary papers
regarding the appointment of Class-III
posts to the D.I.O.S. for its approval.
Thereafter, the D.I.O.S. had sent the
aforesaid letter of the petitioner no.2 to the
Director
of
Education
(Secondary),
Lucknow vide letter dated 25.02.2022. In
furtherance
thereof,
the
Director
of
Education (Secondary), Lucknow, vide
letter dated 14.03.2022, had raised two
objection viz. (i) in the advertisement in
question, there is no detailed description of
pay-scale etc. of the Junior Clerk and post
of Class-IV together with post of Junior
Clerk were advertised, which is contrary to
the established arrangement/order; (ii) there
is
ban
on
making
appointment
of
Ashashkiya Sahayat Prapt Madhyamik
Vidyalaya and the State Government has
also introduced the new procedure for
appointment, hence appointment was found
to be irregular and was liable to be
cancelled.

(8)

Noting
the
aforesaid
two
objections, the D.I.O.S., vide letter/order
dated
30.03.2022,
cancelled
the
appointment made by the Institution on the
post of two Class-III posts and required the
petitioners to show cause as to why action
under Sections 16 (d) (8) of Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 for disruption of the
Management be not taken and the same be
not sent to the State in term of Section 16
(d) (v) of the Intermediate Education Act,
1921.

(9) In response to the aforesaid show
cause notice, the petitioner no.2 had sent a
letter dated 20.05.2022 to the D.I.O.S.,
stating that insofar as point no.1 relating to
non-mentioning of the pay-scale for ClassIII employee in advertisement is concerned,
in the advertisement dated 04.09.2021, it
was noted that after joining, the incumbent
will get the pay-scale fixed by the State
Government and further qualification will
be according to the qualification prescribed
under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921
and the joint advertisement of Class-III and
Class-IV post was made only in order to
2 All. C/M Rahat Janta Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
save the Government money. It was
contended that even the Public Service
Commission and other agencies are also
advertising the joint post of various
category and in so far as point no.2, the
petitioner no.2 had mentioned that there is
no mention of any Government Order
regarding the ban for appointment in
minority institution and further no specific
rule and regulation has been mentioned in
respect of introducing new system by the
Government regarding the appointment for
Class-III posts. Thereafter, the petitioner
no.2 had forwarded the original file of
appointment of two posts of Clerk vide
letter dated 22.10.2021.

(10) Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid
two letters/orders dated 14.03.2022 and
30.03.2022, the petitioners have filed the
instant writ petition.

C. Contention of the Parties

(11) Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar
Srivastava, learned Counsel representing
the petitioner and Shri Vivek Shukla,
learned Standing Counsel representing the
State/respondents.

(12) Learned Counsel representing the
petitioners has submitted that impugned
letters/orders
dated
14.03.2022
and
30.03.2022 to the extent of cancelling the
appointment on two posts of Junior Clerk
in the Institution is erroneous inter alia on
the ground that petitioner no.2 has already
mentioned in the advertisement dated
04.09.2021 that after joining by the
selected candidates, the selected candidates
will get pay-scale and allowances fixed by
the state Government and further there is
no violation of any regulation of the Act
making joint advertisement of Class-III and
Class IV posts. Moreso, there is no ban on
appointment on Class-III posts in the
minority Institution and no new notification
for making appointment on Class-III posts
has been made by the State Government.

(13) Elaborating his submission,
learned Counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that there is no provision relating
to providing for prior permission from the
D.I.O.S. to fill the post of Junior Clerk
(Class-III) in minority Institution such as
petitioners. In the advertisement published
by the Management in two newspapers all
information were there and no one has
challenged
the
selection
proceedings.
According to the learned Counsel, a
minority
institution
enjoys
certain
privileges in terms of Article 30 of the
Constitution of India and enjoys unfettered
right of choice, hence it is not open for the
D.I.O.S. to question the right of the
Management for appointment of the
selected candidates on the post of Junior
Clerk. It is submitted that the provisions
under Chapter II, Regulation 101 of the
Intermediate Education Act do not apply to
the minority institutions mandatorily as
held by this Court in the case of Mohd.
Faizan and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2013 (5) ADJ 471.

(14) Learned Counsel for the
petitioners has further submitted that the
District Inspector of Schools has very
limited role to play in functioning of
minority institution, which is evident from
perusal of Section 16 (FF) and the
provision of Chapter II Regulation 17 of
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
which clearly states that District Inspector
of School can question the appointment in
the minority institution only on the ground
of lack of qualification by the candidate
and not on any other ground. However, in
the present case, there is no such objection.
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
He has placed reliance upon the judgment
of Division Bench of this Court rendered in
State of U.P. Vs. Manager, Committee of
Management Islamia Inter College 2022
(4) ADJ 531.

(15) Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel has submitted that in view of
Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the
State-respondents may not interfere in the
administration of the minority institution
but
the
petitioners
being
an
aided
institution, the State-respondents, who not
only sanctioned the strength of teaching
and non-teaching staff but has to also pay
salary to them from the State Exchequer.
Thus, according to him, the Government
has every right to regulate the things and to
see that after due sanction and approval, the
appointments are made in accordance with
law, which shall ultimately help the
institution in achieving the object for which
it is established and ultimate beneficiary
would be the students, who are builder of
the nation.

(16) Learned Standing Counsel has
further submitted that the matter of
selection/appointment of two Clerks in the
Institution in question submitted by the
petitioners/institution to the D.I.O.S., has
been referred to the Director of Education
(Secondary),
Lucknow
for
providing
guidelines. In pursuance thereof, the
Director
of
Education
(Secondary),
Lucknow, after examining the records, vide
letter dated 14.03.2022, has provided the
guidelines
mentioning
that
in
the
advertisement
published
by
the
Management, there is no mention about the
pay-scale and selection/appointment on the
posts of non-teaching employee (Group-C)
in
non-governmental
aided
secondary
colleges has been banned by the State
Government till a transparent standardized
process for filling up the said posts is made.
Thus, there is no illegality in cancelling the
appointment of the selected candidates by
means of the impugned orders.

D. Analysis

(17) Having regard to the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel for the
parties and going through the record
available before this Court, this Court
deems it appropriate to mention that in the
case of Mohd. Faizan and others (supra), a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has clearly
held that there is no specific provisions for
applying Regulation 101, Chapter III of the
Intermediate Education Act to the minority
institution and as a corollary mere nonobtaining of permission from the DIOS
would not be fatal. Even assuming that it is
regulatory in nature, it does not mean prior
approval as explained by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish
Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, (2006)
2 UPLBEC 1851. Thus, apparently it seems
to this Court that prior permission for
conducting the selection process in the
minority institution was not required in
terms of Regulation 101, Chapter III of the
Intermediate Education Act.

(18) The Constitutional Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pal
Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in 2002 (8) SCC 481 and another
constitution Bench Judgement in the case
of
P.A.
Inamdar
Vs.
State
of
Maharastra, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 537
has laid down certain guidelines with
regard to the functioning of a minority
institution. A perusal of the aforesaid
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court
would indicate the fact, that, inter alia it
has explicitly been held that the State
Government is not empowered to interfere
2 All. C/M Rahat Janta Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
with the functioning of the minority
institution in the matters relating to
appointment of teaching staff as well as
non-teaching staff.

The State Authority cannot under the
garb of adopting regulatory measure
destroy the administrative autonomy of a
minority educational institution or start
interfering with the administration and the
management of the institution so as to
render the right of administration of the
institution concerned nugatory or illusory.
The State Government cannot regulate the
method or procedure for appointment of
teachers and non-teaching staff of a
minority educational institution. Once the
teacher or non-teaching staff, as the case
may
be,
possessing
the
requisite
qualification prescribed by the State or the
University has been selected by the
Management of the minority education
institution by adopting the procedure of
selection, the State Government or the
University, as the case may be, would have
no right to vitiate the selection of such
teacher.

(19) Even the U.P. Secondary
Education Service Section Board Act, 1982
is also not applicable upon a minority
institution in terms of Section 30 of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act.

(20) A perusal of Section 16-FF of the
U.P. Intermediate Act, which is a provision
meant for appointment of teaching staff in a
minority institution, would show that the
said
provision
provides
the
District
Inspector of Schools with limited power of
examining
the
qualification
of
the
candidates who have been selected in a
minority institution. The power of the
District Inspector of Schools in so far as the
appointment of teaching and non-teaching
staff in a minority institution is concerned,
is quite limited and the power is only to the
extent that whether the candidates who
have been selected by a minority selection
committee possessed requisite qualification
or not.

(21) In any case, there is no
gainsaying that the position of law is clear,
in as much as, if there is a doubt as to
whether any order or statutory provision
would apply to a particular set of institution
or not, the law says that there ought to be a
specific mention in the Statute itself that it
shall apply upon a minority institution and
that a provision ipso facto shall not be
deemed to apply upon a minority institution
in terms of Article 29 and 30 of the
Constitution. The learned counsel for the
State was unable to show any order or
provision of law from the records, which
would entail the Director of Education
(Secondary) or the DIOS in taking a stand
that the advertisement for appointment of
Junior Clerks or Class-IV post is in any
manner
contrary
to
the
established
arrangement/order. Apparently, nothing has
come on record to show as to what was the
established arrangement/order as has been
mentioned by the Director of Education
(Secondary) in its impugned letter dated
14.03.2022.

(22) Further, it is not in dispute that
the petitioners/Institution is a minority
institution and was included in the list of
grant-in-aid. The institution had advertised
three posts of Junior Clerk (Class-III) and
three posts of Peon in two newspaper on
04.09.2021. Thereafter, on 21.09.2021, the
petitioner no.2 wrote a letter to the D.I.O.S.
regarding the aforesaid recruitment in the
Institution. On receipt of the aforesaid letter
dated 21.09.2021, the D.I.O.S. wrote letter
to the petitioner no.2 saying that no prior
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permission
had
been
taken
by
the
Institution regarding the aforesaid process
of selection. In response, the petitioner
No.2, vide letter 13.10.2021, informed the
D.I.O.S.
that
on
the
basis
of
the
Government
Order
dated
05.02.2007,
21.08.2014 and 29.10.2021, no prior
permission
for
Class-III
posts
for
appointment in the Institution was required
as the Institution is a minority institution.
Thereafter, the Institution had completed
the selected procedure and appointed two
eligible Junior Clerk and vide letter dated
21.10.2021, the petitioner No.2 forwarded
the papers regarding the appointment of the
said two Junior Clerks to D.I.O.S. for its
approval
along
with
the
relevant
documents. On receipt of the aforesaid
letter dated 21.10.2021, the D.I.O.S. has
forwarded the same to the Director of
Education (Secondary), Lucknow, seeking
guidelines
for
proceeding
further.
Thereafter, on reference, the Director of
Education (Secondary), Lucknow issued
letter dated 14.03.2022 to the D.I.O.S. for
cancelling the aforesaid appointment of two
posts of Junior Clerk in the Institution and
informed as under :-

"I.
in
the
advertisement
in
question, there is no detailed description of
pay-scale etc. of the Junior Clerk and post
of Class-IV together with post of Junior
Clerk were advertised, which is contrary to
the established arrangement/order; and

(ii) there is ban on making
appointment of Ashashkiya Sahayat Prapt
Madhyamik Vidyalaya and the State
Government has also introduced the new
procedure
for
appointment,
hence
appointment are itself irregular and are
liable to be cancelled."

(23) Pursuant to the aforesaid, the
D.I.O.S. has cancelled the appointment of
two selected candidates made by the
Institution on the post of Junior Clerk by
the letter/order dated 30.03.2022 without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners.

(24) So far as aforesaid first objection
of the Director of Education (Secondary),
Lucknow regarding no detailed description
of pay-scale made in the advertisement and
making advertisement for combined posts
i.e. three posts of Junior Clerk and three
posts of Peon, the contention of the
petitioners is that in the advertisement
dated 04.09.2021, it was mentioned that
candidate(s) will also get the pay-scale as
provided
by
the
State
Government.
According to the learned Counsel, although
common advertisement of Class-III and
Class-IV was made but the Management
had decided to make two Class-III
appointments and after adopting due
procedure
of
selection,
two
eligible
candidates were given appointment on the
post of Class-III, however, the Institution
has not made any appointment in respect of
Class-IV
employee.
Thus,
the
first
objection raised against the Institution is
erroneous. Another submission in this
regard is that the letter dated 14.03.2022
has not been supplied to the Institution and
the same has been issued without affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(25) So far as second objection made
in the letter dated 14.03.2022 regarding ban
on making appointment of Ashashkiya
Sahayat Prapt Madhyamik Vidyalaya and
also introduction of the new procedure for
appointment, the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that there was
no ban regarding the appointment Class-III
post in the minority Institution. More so, in
the letter dated 14.03.2022, neither date of
ban is mentioned nor the detailed new
2 All. Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
799
system of appointment is mentioned and it
has
been
simply
mentioned
that
appointment was itself irregular and liable
to be cancelled. Thus, the contention is that
the letter dated 14.03.2022 itself and
consequent letter dated 30.03.2022 are nonspeaking and are erroneous and, therefore,
the same are liable to be quashed.

(26) The facts of the present case
clearly indicate that it is not in dispute that
the selected candidates has possessed
requisite qualification for appointment on
Class - III post on the date of occurrence of
vacancies and that no such findings have
been returned by the District Inspector of
Schools
or
the
Director
Education
(Secondary) with regard to the lack of
requisite qualifications of the selected
candidates. Thus, it can be concluded that
the impugned letters have been passed
without any application of mind and the
Director of Education (Secondary) and the
District Inspector of Schools has clearly
ignored the distinction between a minority
and non-minority institution and has
neglected the privileges which are enjoyed
by the institution in question in terms of
Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of
India. Thus, the impugned orders/letters
passed/issued by the Director of Education
(Secondary) and the District Inspector of
Schools cannot be sustained and are liable
to be quashed.

E. Conclusion

(27) In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned letters
dated 14.03.2022 issued by the Director of
Education
(Secondary),
Lucknow
and
consequent letter dated 30.03.2022 issued
by the DIOS, Bahraich are hereby quashed.
The District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich
is directed to look into the matter afresh
and pass appropriate order, in accordance
with law, after affording opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners, expeditiously,
say, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. The decision so taken shall be
communicated to the petitioners forthwith.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 799
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 7198 of 2023

Vijay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jitendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Yashwant Singh

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Regional Rural Banks -
Applicable Scheme - Date of death of
employee decisive factor.

Held, right to compassionate appointment is not
an inherent right but one conferred by
Rules/Scheme in force on the date of death of
the employee. Subsequent schemes cannot be
applied
retrospectively
unless
expressly
provided. (Paras 13-16)

B. Regional Rural Banks - Adoption of Ministry
of
Finance
Scheme
dated
07.08.2014
-
Applicability.
Scheme
of
Ministry
of
Finance
dated
07.08.2014, though effective for Public Sector
Banks from 05.08.2014, applied to Regional
Rural Banks only upon adoption by the
concerned Bank. Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank
adopted
the
scheme
vide
circular
dated