# Dwivedi v. District Inspector of Schools

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 306
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-07-01
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dwivedi-v-district-inspector-of-schools-39620
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
306

5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not
find any merit in this petition.

6. The writ petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DMHQGUD 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI 6FKRROV )DWHKSXU
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 6. 0LVKUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL .. &KDQG
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

±
0DQGDPXV
±
3HWLWLRQHU
D
SDUW
WLPH
WHDFKHU
KDV
QR
OHJDO
ULJKW
WR LQVLVW
SHUIRUPDQFH
RI
D
VWDWXWRU\
GXW\
E\
DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DXWKRULW\ +HQFH ZULW RI
PDQGDPXV KHOG FDQQRW EH LVVXHG
+HOG ± 3DUD
$ ZULW RI PDQGDPXV FDQQRW EH LVVXHG DV
D PDWWHU RI FRXUVH ,W LV D GLVFUHWLRQDU\
MXULVGLFWLRQ DQG FDQ RQO\ EH LVVXHG IRU
HQIRUFHPHQW RU SHUIRUPDQFH RI VWDWXWRU\
GXW\ E\ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DXWKRULW\ RQ DQ
DSSOLFDWLRQ RI D SHUVRQ ZKR FDQ VKRZ
WKDW KH KLPVHOI KDV D OHJDO ULJKW WR LQVLVW
IRU VXFK SHUIRUPDQFH $ SDUWWLPH RU
KRQRUDU\ WHDFKHU GRHV QRW KDYH DQ\
VWDWXWRU\ ULJKW WR FODLP FRQWLQXDQFH DV D
WHDFKHU
LQ
WKH
LQVWLWXWLRQ
QRU
WKH
FRPPLWWHH RI PDQDJHPHQW LV HQWUXVWHG
ZLWK
SHUIRUPDQFH
RI
VWDWXWRU\
GXW\
7KHUHIRUH D ZULW RI PDQGDPXV FDQQRW
EH
LVVXHG
WR
WKH
PDQDJHPHQW
RU
SULQFLSOH
WR
FRQWLQXH
D
SDUWWLPH
RU
KRQRUDU\ WHDFKHU QRU LW FDQ FRPSHOOHG WR
SD\ DQ\ KRQRUDULXP GXH WR VXFK WHDFKHU
&DVHV UHIHUUHG:
 /%(65
 83/%(&
&0: RI GHFLGHG RQ
$,5 $//

By the Court

1. Adarsh Janta Inter College, Aung,
Fatehpur (in brief institution) is an unaided and recognised institution imparting
education up to class VIII. In 1994 the
institution was upgraded to High School
and again it was upgraded to Intermediate
in 1996. The institution is an un-aided
institution and it was never in the grantin-aid list of the State Government. The
petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher in the institution on 1.7.1992 and
no appointment letter was issued to him.
It is alleged that salary of the petitioner is
not being paid by the respondents. In the
year 1998 in the identity card issued to the
petitioner it is stated that the petitioner
was appointed on 1.7.1998 as Hindi
lecturer. It has been stated in paragraph 12
of the writ petition that the petitioner has
been disengaged by respondents with
effect from March, 2000. This writ
petition has been filed for a direction to
respondents no. 2 and 3 to permit the
petitioner to function as lecturer in the
institution and pay his salary since March,
2000.

2. Sri S.K. Mishra the learned
counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
urged that the petitioner was appointed in
the institution and even though the
institution is un-aided the management
could not even disengage the petitioner
1All] Rajendra Singh V. D.I.O.S., Fatehpur and others
307
from service and he is entitled to
salary. He has placed reliance on the
decisions of this court in Dharmendra Pal
Dwivedi v. District Inspector of Schools
and another 2000 (2) LBESR 790 and
Smt. Shashi Kala Singh v. District
Inspector of Schools. Maharajganj and
others (2000) 1 UPLBEC 2327. He
further urged that respondents no. 2 and 3
be directed to permit the petitioner to
function as lecturer in the school and pay
him salary since March, 2000.

3. On the other hand, Sri K.K.
Chand the learned standing counsel has
urged that decision of this court in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 51940 of 2000
Smt. Suman Lata Sharma V. Regional
Joint Director of Education, Meerut and
others decided on 4.12.2000 it has been
held that a part time teacher appointed
under
section
7-AA
of
the
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in
brief Act) is not a teacher envisaged under
section 16-G of the Act. The service
conditions of such teacher are to be
governed by the government order dated
15.10.1986. The government order dated
15.10.1986 provided that the scheme of
engaging part-time teachers is being made
on experimental basis for imparting
education in the interest of the students
and the payment was to be made from the
own funds of the management. The
government order further provided that
there was no age limit for appointing any
person as part time teacher and even a
retired person could be appointed as part
time teacher.

4. A teacher working in a recognised
unaided institution could not be said to be
a regular teacher as envisaged by Section
16-G of the Act. He can only be a part
time teacher or an honorary teacher. He
could be engaged or disengaged by the
management, which pays honorarium
from its own resources. The controversy
involved in the case is covered by the
decision of this court in Smt. Suman Lata
(supra).

5. The other argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
management
and
principal
of
the
institution be directed to continue him as
teacher and pay him salary is devoid of
any merit. A full bench of this court in
Aley Ahmad Abidi v. District Inspector of
Schools, Allahabad and others AIR 1977
Allahabad 539 has held as below:

"The Committee of Management of
an Intermediate College is not a
statutory body. Nevertheless, a Writ
Petition
filed
against
it
is
maintainable if such petition is for
enforcement of performance of any
legal obligations or duties imposed
on such committee by a statute."

A writ of mandamus cannot be issued as a
matter of course. It is a discretionary
jurisdiction and can only be issued for
enforcement or performance of statutory
duty by administrative authority, on an
application of a person who can show that
he himself has a legal right to insist for
such
performance.
A
part-time
or
honorary teacher does not have any
statutory right to claim continuance as a
teacher
in
the
institution
nor
the
committee of management is entrusted
with performance of statutory duty.
Therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be
issued to the management or principal to
continue a part-time or honorary teacher
nor it can be compelled to pay any
honorarium due to such teacher.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
308
6. For the reasons aforesaid, this
writ
petition
fails
and
accordingly
dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -.

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

7KH &RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW 5% 5DR
,QWHU &ROOHJH RWKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH -RLQW 'LUHFWRU RI (GXFDWLRQ 9,,WK
5HJLRQ 2WKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $% 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

83 ,QWHUPHGLDWH (GXFDWLRQ $FW
5HJXODWLRQ

&RPSDVVLRQDWH
$SSRLQWPHQW ± +XVEDQG GLHG LQ KDUQHVV
'LVWULFW
&RPPLWWHH
FRQVWLWXWHG
XQGHU
QRWLILFDWLRQ GDWHG DFFHSWHG WKH
FODLP
±
',26
E\
RUGHU
GDWHG

GLUHFWHG
0DQDJHPHQW3ULQFLSDO
WR
LVVXH
DSSRLQWPHQW OHWWHU ± LQVWHDG RI WKDW
PDQDJHPHQW
ILOHG
ZULW
SHWLWLRQ
±
GLUHFWLRQ
LVVXHG
WR
LVVXH
WKH
DSSRLQWPHQW OHWWHU
+HOG ± 3DUD
7KH
FODLP
WKDW
WKH\
ZRXOG
RIIHU
DSSRLQWPHQW WR KHU PLQRU VRQ ZKHQ KH
EHFRPHV PDMRU LV DOVR DGYDQFHG WR GHQ\
DSSRLQWPHQW WR WKH ZLGRZ 7KH IDPLO\ RI
WKH GHFHDVHG DSSHDUV WR EH LQ ILQDQFLDO
FULVLV 7KH ZLGRZ LV UXQQLQJ IURP SLOODU
WR
SRVW
EXW
WKH
SHWLWLRQHUV
DUH
QRW
FRPSO\LQJ ZLWK WKH RUGHU RI ',26 QRU
WKH\ DUH SHUPLWWLQJ WKH ZLGRZ WR MRLQ
7KH RUGHU ZDV SDVVHG E\ ',26 RQ WKH
EDVLV RI SXEOLF SROLF\ ,W VHUYHV SXEOLF
LQWHUHVW LQ DEVHQFH RI DQ\ YDOLG UHDVRQ
WKH SHWLWLRQHU FDQQRW GHQ\ DSSRLQWPHQW
WR WKH ZLGRZ

By the Court

1. Dhrup Deo Dubey was working
as Chaukidar on a class-IV post in Ram
Bilas Rao, Intermediate College, Rampur
Buzurg, Salempur, Deoria. He died in
harness on 28.3.1999, leaving behind
Smt. Subhawati Devi his widow, a minor
son and a minor daughter. The widow
claimed appointment under the dying in
harness rules. On 25.1.2000 the District
Inspector of Schools, Deoria (in brief
DIOS)
called
for
report
from
the
manager/Principal.
The
district
Committee constituted under notification
dated 2.2.1995 considered the petitioner's
claim and found the widow entitled for
appointment under the dying in harness
rules. The DIOS on 2.8.2000 directed the
Manager/Principal
to
appoint
Smt.
Subhawati Devi. The petitioners made a
representation on 15.9.2000 to DIOS that
order dated 23.8.2000 be cancelled. The
manager alleged that Smt. Subhawati
Devi is aged 60 years. He raised dispute
about date of birth of the widow. And
stated that son of the deceased who is a
minor be given appointment after he
becomes major. It appears that at the
instance of the petitioners that Principal
did not issue appointment letter to the
widow. The widow informed the DIOS
that neither she has been appointed nor
permitted to join the institution. The
DIOS on 16.10.2000 wrote a letter to the
Manager/Principal that they were not
complying
with
the
order
dated
23.8.2000. And in case the order is not
complied legal action would be taken.
Instead of complying with the orders of
DIOS the petitioner have filed this