# Fuzail Ansari v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 295
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-08-23
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/fuzail-ansari-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39582
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1All] Brahma Dutta Sharma V. The State of U.P. and others
295
salary from the grant in aid received
from the government. This question has
been considered by the court in civil misc.
writ petition no. 29097 of 1998 Mohd.
Fuzail Ansari vs. State of U.P. and others
decided on 30.11.2000, therefore, for the
same reasons, I do not find any merit in
the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner.

6. The other argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that approval to
his appointment has been granted by the
BSA, therefore, he is entitled for salary is
also devoid of any merit. It appears that
BSA
had
granted
approval to the
appointment
of
the
petitioner
on
20.12.1997 under a mistake as the post
was not created and the management
appears to have concealed this fact from
the BSA. Even the subsequent letter of
BSA by which he informed the Director
that approval was granted in 1997 on a
post, which was not created itself
demonstrate
that
a
mistake
was
committed by the BSA, while granting
approval on 20.12.1997, therefore, such
approval automatically came to an end as
per the clear terms of the other of
approval. And no right could accrue on
the post to the petitioner on the basis of
approval dated 20.12.97.

7. The last argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that since the
direction has been issued by the office of
the Director to the BSA for payment of
his salary, therefore, he is entitled for
salary is also devoid of merit. The order
clearly states that in view of the directions
of this Court in civil misc. writ petition
no. 19781 of 1999 decided on 13.5.99,
salary be paid to the petitioner. I have
gone through the order passed by this
Court which has been filed as Annexure 4
to the writ petition. There is no direction
for payment of salary to the petitioner and
only direction issued by this Court was
for deciding the representation of the
petitioner by the concerned authority. The
order dated 16.6.2000 that has been issued
by the office of the Director had been
issued under a mistake that this Court
directed the respondents for payment of
salary to the petitioner. If salary of the
petitioner has not been paid by the BSA,
he has not committed any illegality as the
post of assistant teacher was not created,
therefore, no salary could be paid to him.

8. However, it is always open to the
management to apply to the Director for
the creation of the post of assistant
teacher.

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

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

%UDKPD 'XWWD 6KDUPD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV 5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5& .DWDUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6PW &KLWUDOHNKD 6WVDQJL
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH WKH IXOO
%HQFK GHFLVLRQ LV QRW DSSOLFDEOH WR WKH
IDFWV RI WKH FDVH DV OHDUQHG FRXQVHO IRU
WKH SHWLWLRQHU KDV QRW EHHQ DEOH WR VKRZ
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
296
DQ\ SURYLVLRQ XQGHU ZKLFK WKH 'LUHFWRU
RI (GXFDWLRQ LV VXERUGLQDWH WR WKH 6WDWH
(GXFDWLRQ 0LQVWHU
+HOG
7KH OHDUQHG FRXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
KDV
SODFHG
UHOLDQFH RQ D )XOO %HQFK
GHFLVLRQ RI WKLV FRXUW LQ 7DUD 3UDVDG
0LVUD Y 6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
 83/%(& ZKHUH LQ LW KDV EHHQ KHOG
WKDW WKH VXERUGLQDWH DXWKRULW\ VKRXOG
FRPSO\
WKH
RUGHUV
RI
WKH
VXSHULRU
DXWKRULW\ 7KLV IXOO %HQFK 'HFLVLRQ LV QRW
DSSOLFDEOH WR WKH IDFW RI WKLV FDVH DV
OHDUQHG FRXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU KDV
QRW EHHQ DEOH WR VRZ DQ\ SURYLVLRQ XQGHU
ZKLFK
WKH
'LUHFWRU
RI
(GXFDWLRQ
LV
VXERUGLQDWH
WR
WKH
6WDWH
(GXFDWLRQ
0LQVWHU

By the Court

1. The petitioner was teaching as
Lecture in Chemistry in Government Inter
College, Agra. By order dated23.8.2000
he was transferred to Government Inter
College,
Mainpuri
on
administrative
grounds. The wife of the petitioner made
a representative to the Revenue Minister
who wrote a letter on 19.9.2000 to the
State Education Minister if he would issue
order for cancellation of petitioner's
transfer.
On
21.9.2000
the
State
Education Minister directed the Director,
Madhyamik Shiksha to submit a report
and cancel the transfer of the petitioner.
This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for a direction to respondents to
implement the order passed by the State
Education Minister. The other relief
claimed is that the respondents have
deducted a sum of Rs.1634/- from the
salary of the petitioner for loss of one
steel almirah without any inquiry.

2. Shri R.C. Katara the learned
counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that once the State Education
Minister wrote a letter to the Director of
Education to cancel the transfer order of
the petitioner, the director was under
statutory duty to cancel the transfer order
dated
23.8.2000
passed against the
petitioner. The other argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the respondents without inquiry and
serving him an order of recovery could
not have deducted Rs.1634/- from his
salary.

3. On the other hand Smt.
Chitralekha Satsangi the learned standing
counsel has urged that the petitioner did
not make any representation to the
director or to the State Education
Minister. The wife of petitioner did make
a representation to the Revenue Minister
who wrote a letter to the State Education
Minister, to cancel the transfer order. She
urged that in law wife of an employee
could not make any representation for
staying the transfer of her husband. It is
the employee himself who has to make to
the concerned authority for cancelling the
transfer.

4. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has vehemently urged that the
minister is in-charge of the Department
and it is the duty of the Director of
Education to obey every order passed by
the Minister and since the Director is
under statutory duty to obey the orders
passed by the Minister and since the
Director is under statutory duty to obey
the order of the Minister, therefore, a writ
of mandamus can be issued to him to
implement the order. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance on a
Full bench decision of this court in Tara
Prasad Misra v. state of U.P. and others
(1990) 2 UPLBEC 905 wherein it has
been held that the subordinate authority
1All] Guddu alias Shamsher V. State of U.P. and others
297
should comply the order of the
superior authority. This Full Bench
decision is not applicable to the facts of
this case as learned counsel for the
petitioner has not been able to show any
provision under which the Director of
Education is subordinate to the State
Education
Minister.
Therefore,
this
argument of the learned counsel is devoid
of any merit.

5. So far as the other contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is
concerned
that
Rs.1634/-
has
been
deducted from his salary without any
inquiry or supplying a copy of the order,
the petitioner may approach the Principal,
Government Inter College, Agra and
make a representation for providing a
copy of the order by which his salary of
Rs.1634/- has been deducted. On such a
representation copy of the order shall be
made available to the petitioner within a
period of two weeks from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced
before the principal.

6. For the reasons aforesaid and
subject to the observations made.

This writ petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' '(&(0%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' '(&(0%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF +DEHDV &RUSXV 3HWLWLRQ 1R
 RI
*XGGX DOLDV 6KDPVKHU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 93 6ULYDVWDYD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL 61 0LVUD
$*$

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 7KH
TXHVWLRQ
ZKHWKHU
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
ZDV
LQIRUPHG WKDW KH KDG D ULJKW WR PDNH
UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ WR WKH GHWDLQLQJ DXWKRULW\
QDPHO\ WKH 'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH LV D SXUH
TXHVWLRQ RI IDFW +HOG LQ SDUD
2UGHU RI GHWHQWLRQ FDQ EH SDVVHG RQ WKH
VXEMHFWLYH VDWLVIDFWLRQ RI WKH GHWDLQLQJ
DXWKRULW\ ,I WKH 'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH ZDV
RI WKH RSLQLRQ WKDW LW ZDV QHFHVVDU\ WR
GHWDLQ WKH SHWLWLRQHU DORQH LQ RUGHU WR
SUHYHQW KLP IURP DFWLQJ LQ DQ\ PDQQHU
SUHMXGLFLDO WR WKH PDLQWHQDQFH RI SXEOLF
RUGHU WKHQ VXFK D VDWLVIDFWLRQ FDQQRW EH
YLWLDWHG RQO\ RQ WKH JURXQG WKDW QR VXFK
RUGHU KDV EHHQ SDVVHG DV UHJDUGV WKH
RWKHU FRDFFXVHG RI WKH FDVH

By the Court

1. This habeas corpus petition has
been filed by Guddu @Shamsher for
quashing the detention order passed
against him and setting him at liberty
forthwith.
2.

The
District
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad passed an order on 6.1.2000
under Section 3(2) of the National
Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the
Act) for detaining the petitioner Guddu @
Shamsher with a view to prevent him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order.

3. The detention order and also the
grounds of detention were served upon
the petitioner on the same day, i.e. on
6.1.2000 in jail as he was in judicial