# Committee of Management and another v. Amar Nath Gupta and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 555
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-08-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 941 of 2004
- **Bench:** M. Katju
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-and-another-v-amar-nath-gupta-and-others-40240
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Selection of petitioner on Asstt. Teacher
by Selection Committee placing of wrong
facts about petitioner that he possessed
requisite
qualification
of
B.Ed.
on
relevant date-Selection null and void-set
aside
by
DIOS-Fresh
selection
conducted-Petitioner, not entitled to
appointment and salary.

Held: Para 5 & 6

According
to
the
respondents,
the
petitioner was never allowed to join as
such, no question arose for payment and
when the out-come of the selection
committee is void abinitio and the
selection
committee
arrived
on
the
conclusion to give quality point marks on
the non-existing facts i.e. on the fact
that the petitioner was not B.Ed. it is
well settled that a candidate has to be in
possession of required qualification and
eligibility at the relevant date and time
as required in the advertisement and
acquiring degree or qualification beyond
the prescribed date does not entitle to be
bonafide candidate for the said selection
in view of decision of Supreme Court in
(1994) 2 S.C.C. 723 U.P. Public Service
Commission Vs. Alpana.

I have learned counsel for the parties. I
find that the petitioner was not in
possession of the required qualification
on the relevant date and has placed
wrong facts that he was B.Ed., and got
appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher in C.T. grade in the year 1998
which was declared dying cadre and the
said selection by which the petitioner
was bonafidely declared approved was
set aside being null and void by the then
D.I.O.S..
The
subsequent
selection
already conducted had approved another
person who was allowed to work. In
these circumstances, the petitioner has
no right to the post and salary and is not
entitled to any relief as prayed for.
Case law discussed:
(1994) 2 SCC 723

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Committee of Management and another V. Amar Nath Gupta and others
555
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.

Special Appeal No. 941 of 2004

Committee of Management, and another

...Appellants
Versus
Amar Nath Gupta & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Miss Anuradha Sundaram

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shailesh Srivastava
Sri M.L. Jain
S.C.

Service
Law-House
rent
allowanceEntitlement to-If both husband and wife
are in Service, only one who is getting
higher H.R.A., held, entitled to get such
benefit.

Held: Para 4

Hence we are of the opinion that if both
the husband and wife are in service then
both are not entitled to house rent
allowance unless it is clearly established
that they are divorced or otherwise
separated. Only one of them can claim
for house rent allowance. If they are
getting different amounts of house rent
allowance then the spouse, who is
getting higher house rent allowance will
continue to get the house rent allowance
but the other will not get it.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, A.C.J.)

1. This Special Appeal has been
filed against the impugned judgment of
learned Single Judge dated 30.7.2004.

2. We have heard the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused
the impugned order.

3. The question in this case that both
husband and wife are in service whether
they both are entitled to get house rent
allowances? We are of the firm opinion
that they are not. The reason for our
opinion is that the house rent allowance is
given for compensation for the house rent
which an employee has to pay to his
landlord.

4. Ordinarily a husband and wife are
presumed to live together in the same
house and if they are paying say
Rs.1000/- to the landlord then obviously
both husband as well as wife cannot get
house rent allowances of Rs.1,000 each
because they will then be getting
Rs.2000/- as house rent allowance. Hence
we are of the opinion that if both the
husband and wife are in service then both
are not entitled to house rent allowance
unless it is clearly established that they
are divorced or otherwise separated. Only
one of them can claim for house rent
allowance. If they are getting different
amounts of house rent allowance then the
spouse, who is getting higher house rent
allowance will continue to get the house
rent allowance but the other will not get
it.

5. With these observations, the
appeal is allowed and the impugned order
is set aside.
Appeal allowed.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
556
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6779 of 1983

Tribhuwan Nath Rai

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through the Collector,
Ghazipur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Misra
Sri Sidheshwari Prasad
Sri R.P. Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sandeep Mukherji, S.C.
Sri O.P. Singh
Sri Faujdar Rai

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Selection of petitioner on Asstt. Teacher
by Selection Committee placing of wrong
facts about petitioner that he possessed
requisite
qualification
of
B.Ed.
on
relevant date-Selection null and void-set
aside
by
DIOS-Fresh
selection
conducted-Petitioner, not entitled to
appointment and salary.

Held: Para 5 & 6

According
to
the
respondents,
the
petitioner was never allowed to join as
such, no question arose for payment and
when the out-come of the selection
committee is void abinitio and the
selection
committee
arrived
on
the
conclusion to give quality point marks on
the non-existing facts i.e. on the fact
that the petitioner was not B.Ed. it is
well settled that a candidate has to be in
possession of required qualification and
eligibility at the relevant date and time
as required in the advertisement and
acquiring degree or qualification beyond
the prescribed date does not entitle to be
bonafide candidate for the said selection
in view of decision of Supreme Court in
(1994) 2 S.C.C. 723 U.P. Public Service
Commission Vs. Alpana.

I have learned counsel for the parties. I
find that the petitioner was not in
possession of the required qualification
on the relevant date and has placed
wrong facts that he was B.Ed., and got
appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher in C.T. grade in the year 1998
which was declared dying cadre and the
said selection by which the petitioner
was bonafidely declared approved was
set aside being null and void by the then
D.I.O.S..
The
subsequent
selection
already conducted had approved another
person who was allowed to work. In
these circumstances, the petitioner has
no right to the post and salary and is not
entitled to any relief as prayed for.
Case law discussed:
(1994) 2 SCC 723

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.P. Yadav learned
counsel for and on behalf of the petitioner
and Sri Sandeep Mukherji, learned
Standing counsel.

2. In this petition prayer has been
made for issuance of writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay the
petitioner his entire salary due from
24.3.1982.

3. It appears that an advertisement
was published for selection to the post of
Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade (now a
dying cadre) in the year 1980 where the
incumbent was required to possess of
B.Ed. degree in addition to the required
qualification prescribed. The petitioner
had appeared in the B.Ed. Examination
but his result was not declared and at that
relevant time he was not in a possession
of degree of B.Ed., however on his wrong
disclosure that he possess B.Ed. Degree,