# C/M, Sohan Lal Balika Inter College v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 150
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-14
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 22593 of 2021
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-sohan-lal-balika-inter-college-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47698
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Ch. III - Reg. 101 to 104 - Post of Clerk -
Selection
and
appointment
-
Prior
approval of District Inspector of School,
how
far
required
before
initiating
selection - Held, no prior approval is
required
for
initiating
the
selection
process,
however,
prior
approval
is
required
before
issuance
of
any
appointment letter - Impugned order
passed on the analogy that prior approval
for the selection was not taken was held
contrary to the judgments of this Court.
(Para 13 and 14)
Writ petition disposed off. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Development Area Building Regulation, 2010
provides that no person shall erect any
building or a boundary wall or fencing without
obtaining a prior permission thereof from the
Chief Executive Officer or an officer
authorised by the Chief Executive Officer for
this purpose. Regulation 5 stipulates that any
person who intends to erect a building within
the industrial development area shall give
application in the Form given at Appendix-1
and subject to compliance of the provisions
laid down under the Regulations, permission
shall be granted/refused. Regulation 20.3
stipulates that in case of unauthorized
development, the Chief Executive Officer or
an officer authorized by the Chief Executive
Officer shall take suitable action which may
include demolition of unauthorized work,
sealing of premises, prosecution and criminal
proceedings against the offenders in pursuance
of relevant Acts in force.

9. Before this Court, the petitioners have
only raised plea of constructions being old, but
no such evidence was filed before the
Authority nor even before this Court.

10. Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners fairly admits that
there is no evidence with the petitioners to
show that the constructions were raised before
the area was notified as industrial development
area so as to take the same outside the clutches
of the Building Regulations framed by the
Authority. He, however, submitted that the
observation in the impugned order that Khasra
No.734 is recorded as banjar and there is no
evidence of settlement of the said land with
any person, is an incorrect observation.

11. Mrs. Anjali Upadhya, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA
Authority submitted that the observation is
based on a report of Tehsildar, Dadari. It is a
mere passing observation and the dispute
relating to right, title or interest in the subject
land was not decided by the Authority.

12. We find considerable force in her
submission. The observation made in the
impugned order in respect of subject land
being recorded as banjar land and there being
no evidence of allotment thereof in favour of
any person is not an adjudication made by the
Authority qua the rights of the petitioners in
the subject land. We therefore clarify that the
petitioners are free to get their rights
adjudicated in this behalf in appropriate
proceedings
and
wherein
the
above
observation will have no adverse effect.

13. However, as noted above, since the
petitioners have failed to prove that the
constructions over the subject land were old
or were raised prior to the area being
declared as Industrial Development Area
and also in view of the admitted fact that the
subject land is flood plain zone of river
Yamuna, we find no illegality in the
impugned order in so far as it holds that the
constructions raised by the petitioners are
illegal and unauthorized and are liable to be
demolished.

14. The petition lacks merit and is
dismissed subject to the above clarification.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 150
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 22593 of 2021

C/M, Sohan Lal Balika Inter College
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
10 All. C/M, Sohan Lal Balika Inter College Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
151
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Om Prakash Mani Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Ch. III - Reg. 101 to 104 - Post of Clerk -
Selection
and
appointment
-
Prior
approval of District Inspector of School,
how
far
required
before
initiating
selection - Held, no prior approval is
required
for
initiating
the
selection
process,
however,
prior
approval
is
required
before
issuance
of
any
appointment letter - Impugned order
passed on the analogy that prior approval
for the selection was not taken was held
contrary to the judgments of this Court.
(Para 13 and 14)
Writ petition disposed off. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Jagdish Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; (2006) 2
UPLBEC 1851
2. Abhishek Tripathi Vs St. of U.P.; (2015) 2
UPLBEC 1272
3. Preet Kumar Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2011 (9) ADJ 591
4. Deepak Kumar Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
MANU/UP/1820/2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Mani
Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 07.07.2021
passed
by
the
Director,
Secondary
Education,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow
whereby the request of the petitioner's
institution for granting approval to the
selection made on Class-III post has been
rejected as well as the order dated
07.10.2021 passed on similar grounds by
the respondent no.2.

3. The averments in brief are that the
petitioner Society is running an institution
in the name of Sohan Lal Balika Inter
College and is managing the affairs of the
institution. On 31.07.2020, the regular clerk
posted in the institution was retired, as a
result whereof, a vacancy accrued on
01.08.2020.

4. As the institution was suffering on
account of the vacancy, a request was made
on 07.08.2020 to the Director, Secondary
Education through the District Inspector of
Schools informing that the clerk working in
the institution has retired and one post of
clerk sanctioned for the College is laying
vacant
since
01.08.2020,
as
such,
permission may be granted to fill up the
vacant post through direct recruitment.
Thereafter,
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools communicated the request of the
petitioner to the Director, Secondary
Education giving reference to the request
made by the petitioner. The said letter is
contained in Annexure-3 to the writ
petition.

5. It is stated that despite the request,
no orders were being passed, as such, the
petitioner approached this Court by filing a
Writ Petition No.21223 (MS) of 2020
seeking a direction upon the respondents to
decide the application of the petitioner for
making the selection. The said writ petition
was
disposed
off
vide
order
dated
19.11.2020 directing the respondent no.2
therein
to
consider
and
decide
the
application of the petitioner by speaking
order within six weeks. It is argued that
despite the said directions, no decision was
taken within six weeks, as such, the
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Managing Committee once again sent a
reminder on 30.01.2021 with a request to
take a decision.

6. As no decision was being taken
despite the directions, the Committee of
Management constituted a Committee for
selection of a candidate to the post of
Junior Clerk and issued an advertisement in
the newspaper, namely Swatantra Chetna
on
05.02.2021
(Annexure-7).
The
Committee took interview of the eligible
candidates and on the basis of the quality
points selected one Mr. Vibhanshu Maurya
for being appointed on the Class-III posts.
A resolution to that effect was passed on
29.04.2021. The process of selection was
intimated to the District Inspector of
School-II,
Lucknow
on
27.05.2021,
however, it is stated that he refused to
accept the documents, as such, the same
was sent through registered post which was
received back with the remark "refused to
receive".

7. As no action was being taken for
approval of the selection made by the
Committee, another writ petition was filed by
the petitioner being Writ Petition No.13593
(MS) of 2021 which was disposed off vide
order dated 06.07.2021 by this Court directing
the respondents to take a decision within a
period of one months. However, on the very
next day, an order came to be passed which is
contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition,
stating that the said order was being passed in
compliance of the earlier directions given by
this Court vide order dated 19.11.2020. By
means of the said order which is impugned in
the writ petition, the Director, Secondary
Education proceeded to reject the request of
the petitioner on various grounds.

8. A perusal of the order impugned
(Annexure-1) reveals that the District
Inspector of Schools found that two posts
were vacant in Class-III category (The
Counsel for the petitioner states that the
same has been wrongly recorded and was
rightly held to be one post in the
subsequent order dated 07.10.2021 which is
also impugned). The order further records
that process of selection undertaken was
contrary to the mandate of the High Court
in its judgment dated 19.11.2020. It further
records that the District Inspector of
Schools, Lucknow in his report has stated
that the selection of Vibhanshu Maurya has
been done without any prior approval, as
such, it is improper to approve the said
selection. It further records that a ban has
been imposed by the State Government on
30.10.2019 in respect of 26 colleges. It also
places reliance on another Government
Order dated 19.01.2021 which relates to the
colleges except 26 colleges mentioned in
the Government Order dated 30.10.2019
and thereafter concluded that for the
reasons as disclosed, it would not be proper
to grant approval as sought by the
petitioner. Subsequently, another order
came
to
be
passed
on
07.10.2021
(Annexure-15
added
through
an
amendment) which was also challenged
through an amendment application. In the
order dated 07.10.2021, while deciding the
representation of the petitioner as directed
by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2021,
it was observed that there was one post of
Class-III was vacant in the petitioner's
institution. It further records that although
no procedure for filling the vacancy is
specified, as such, any selection may result
in nepotism in the process of selection. It
also places reference to the Government
Order dated 26.04.2014 and holds that any
selection made without any prior approval,
could not be entitled for salary from the
State exchequer. The said two orders are
under challenge.
10 All. C/M, Sohan Lal Balika Inter College Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
153

9. The Counsel for the petitioner
argues that Regulation 101 in Chapter III of
The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 confers power of appointment
subject to approval by the District Inspector
of Schools. He argues that the scope of
Regulations 101 to 104 came up for
interpretation before this Court in the case
of Jagdish Singh vs State of U.P. and
others; (2006) 2 UPLBEC 1851 wherein
the Division Bench of this Court was of the
view that prior approval contemplated
under Regulation 101 is required after the
process of selection and before the issuance
of the appointment letter to the selected
candidate. He further places reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Abhishek Tripathi vs State of U.P.; (2015)
2 UPLBEC 1272 wherein this Court
following the earlier judgment rendered in
the case of Preet Kumar Srivastava vs
State of U.P. and others; 2011 (9) ADJ
591 as well as Jagdish Singh (Supra) has
held that necessity for prior approval would
arise only subsequent to the selection and
prior to issuance of the appointment letter.

10. In the light of the said two
judgments, learned Counsel for the petitioner
argues that the orders impugned are bad in
law, inasmuch as, it refused the approval for
selection which is contrary and in the teeth of
the aforesaid two judgments of this Court. He
further
argues
that
mention
of
the
Government
Order
restraining
the
appointment in 26 colleges would not apply
to the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the
name of the petitioner 's College does not find
mention in the list of the said 26 colleges. He
argues
that
the
Director,
Secondary
Education ought to have applied his mind
with regard to the manner in which the
selection was made which does not exist in
the said impugned order and thus, the same
are bad in law. He further argues that as the
selection has already been done and the
person is working, a direction is liable to be
issued for payment of salary. In support of
that he places reliance on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Sunil Kumar vs State of
U.P. and others (Service Single No.2341 of
2010) decided on 03.12.2018.

11. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears
on behalf of the State has tried to justify the
orders impugned on the strength of judgment
of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar
Singh vs State of U.P. and others;
MANU/UP/1820/2019.

12. A perusal of the said judgment
makes it clear that this court while deciding
the issue considered the earlier judgment of
this court in the case of Jagdish Singh
(Supra) and held that the member of the
Committee of Management cannot issue an
appointment letter or permit joining of a
candidate without there being a prior
approval.

13. Considering the submissions made
at the bar, in the present case, there is no
dispute that one substantive vacancy existed
in the institution in question, the Committee
of Management has made selection without
there
being
prior
approval
and
after
completing the selection process issued letter
to the selected candidate and in view of the
law laid down by this Court in the case of
Jagdish Singh (Supra) followed in the cases
of Preet Kumar Srivastava (Supra) and
Abhishek Tripathi (Supra), it is clearly settled
that no prior approval is required for initiating
the selection process, however, prior approval
is
required
before
issuance
of
any
appointment letter.

14. From the perusal of the orders
impugned, it reflect that there is no
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application of mind in respect of the selection
made by the petitioner. The respondents have
proceeded to pass the order on the analogy
that prior approval for the selection was not
taken which stand is contrary to the
judgments of this Court as referred above.
The other ground that the action of the
petitioner was contrary to the order of this
court passed on 19.11.2020 also merits
rejection, inasmuch as, this Court while
passing the order dated 19.11.2020 had
simply directed the respondents to take a
decision in terms of the request made by the
petitioner within six weeks, which the
respondents did not do. The other reasoning
mentioned in the impugned orders that in
terms of the Government Order, there was a
bar for making appointment in respect of the
26 colleges also does not find favour of this
court in view of the fact that the petitioner
Institution is not named in the list of the 26
colleges as referred to in the Government
Order, thus for all the reasons recorded above
and in the light of the judgments of this Court
rendered in the case of Jagdish Singh (Supra)
followed in the cases of Preet Kumar
Srivastava (Supra) and Abhishek Tripathi
(Supra),
the
orders
impugned
dated
07.07.2021 and 07.10.2021 are set aside.

15. The matter is relegated to the
Director, Secondary Education for passing a
fresh order after considering the observations
made hereinabove and the law laid down by
this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh
(Supra) followed in the cases of Preet Kumar
Srivastava (Supra) and Abhishek Tripathi
(Supra).

16. The Director, Secondary Education
shall take decision with all expeditions
preferably within a period of two months
from the date of production of certified copy
of this order.

17. The Director shall take decision in
terms of regulations and shall pass orders on
the request of the petitioner to grant of
approval for selection on the Class-III posts.

18. It is made clear that the question of
the petitioner not taking prior approval before
the selection process shall not be a ground for
passing the orders as directed above.

19. So far as the prayer of the petitioner
for granting approval with all consequential
benefits cannot be accepted in terms of the
orders passed by this Court, inasmuch as, the
law is well settled that before issuance of
appointment letter and permitting a person to
join, prior approval is necessary. The
entitlement of salary to the selected candidate
shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh
order to be passed by the Director as directed
hereinabove.

20. For the reasons recorded above, the
writ petition is disposed off.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 154
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2022

BEFORE

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

Writ-C No. 50437 of 2011

U.P.S.R.T.C., Azamgarh & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Labour Court, U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Sri S.M. Mishra, Sri
Sunil Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondents: