# Gram Shiksha Samiti Primary School Sant Kabir Nagar& Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 104
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-12-04
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 53525 of 2011
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gram-shiksha-samiti-primary-school-sant-kabir-nagar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43416
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-payment
of salary-engagement of Shiksha Mitradiscontinued by resolution of Gram
Shiksha Samit-after appraisal of his
performance-direction
of
District
Magistrate
contrary
to
that-held-not
sustainable-unless-resolution of Samit
challenge-order impugned by D.M. Heldwithout jurisdiction.
Held: Para-10
Unless the aforesaid resolution dated
19.5.2007 is set aside by a competent
court, it was not open for the District
Magistrate to pass the impugned order
directing for payment of honorarium to
the respondent no.5 and renewal of her
contract of Shiksha Mitra. Thus the
impugned order dated 24.6.2011 passed
by District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar
is
arbitrary,
illegal
and
without
jurisdiction and, therefore, deserves to
be set aside.

## Text

104
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
challenge before the elections and if
necessary, could be challenged after the
elections are over or by filing a civil suit.
The 7 persons who have been denied
membership of the Society could have
taken recourse to the civil suit but the
Assistant
Registrar
could
not
have
usurped the jurisdiction to direct the
Society for giving membership to them.
Such a direction is even contrary to the
bye laws of the Society.
31. In view of the above facts and
circumstances, the impugned order dated
30.6.2012
passed
by
the
Assistant
registrar is held to be without jurisdiction
and is quashed. The consequential order
of the DIOS dated 29.8.2012 also falls to
the ground.
32. The writ petition stands allowed
with no orders as to costs.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
Writ-A No. 53525 of 2011
Gram Shiksha Samiti Primary School
Sant Kabir Nagar& Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anuj Kumar, Tripathi B.G. Bhai
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anand P. Pandey, K.S. Shukla,
M.D. Mishra, Rajendra Kumar Pandey
Constitution of India, Art.-226-payment
of salary-engagement of Shiksha Mitradiscontinued by resolution of Gram
Shiksha Samit-after appraisal of his
performance-direction
of
District
Magistrate
contrary
to
that-held-not
sustainable-unless-resolution of Samit
challenge-order impugned by D.M. Heldwithout jurisdiction.
Held: Para-10
Unless the aforesaid resolution dated
19.5.2007 is set aside by a competent
court, it was not open for the District
Magistrate to pass the impugned order
directing for payment of honorarium to
the respondent no.5 and renewal of her
contract of Shiksha Mitra. Thus the
impugned order dated 24.6.2011 passed
by District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar
is
arbitrary,
illegal
and
without
jurisdiction and, therefore, deserves to
be set aside.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)
1. Heard Smt. Anita Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.C. Pathak,
learned standing counsel for respondent
no.1 and 3 and Sri M.D. Misra, learned
counsel for respondent no.5.
2. No one appears for respondent
nos.2 and 4.
3. This writ petition has been filed
by the Gram Shiksha Samiti praying to
quash the order dated 24.6.2011 passed by
District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar
directing for payment of honorarium to
the respondent no.5.
4. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that by unanimous
resolution
dated
19.5.2007
the
engagement of respondent no.5 (Shiksha
Mitra) was cancelled after following due
procedure as provided in clause 9 of the
Government Order No. 2604/15-5-99-
1 All. Gram Shiksha Samiti Primary School Sant Kabir Nagar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
105
282-98. The said resolution has not been
set aside by any authority of Court. Under
the circumstances it was not open for the
District Magistrate to issue direction by
the impugned order to pay honorarium to
the
respondent
no.5.
It
is
further
submitted that the resolution dated
19.5.2007 was not challenged by the
petitioner before any court.
5. Sri M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent no.5 submits that the petitioners
have illegally passed the resolution and
consequently,
the
respondent
no.5
approached the District Magistrate who
lawfully several times passed the impugned
order directing for payment of honorarium to
the respondent no.5. He submits that the writ
petition is wholly
misconceived and,
therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
6.

Learned
standing
counsel
supports the impugned order.
7. I have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
8. Clause Nos. 6,7,8 and 9 of the
Government Order No. 2604/15-5-99282-98 provides as follows:
6- f'k{kk feJ dk p;u& 1⁄4d1⁄2 xzke f'k{kk
lfefr f'k{kk fe=@fe=ksa ds p;u gsrq cSBd vkgwr
djsxh] ftlesa lfefr ds lnL;ksa dh dqy la[;k ds
nks frgkbZ lnL;ksa dh mifLFkfr vfuok;Z gksxhA
1⁄4[k1⁄2 lfefr ds }kjk lnL;ksa ds lEeq[k miyC/k
vgZ O;fDr;ksa dh lwph IkzLrqr dh tk;sxh] ;g lwph
muds }kjk gkbZLdwy rFkk b.VjehfM,V ijh{kk ds
izkIr dqy vadks ds izfr'kr ds vkSlr vadksa ds vk/kkj
ij fufeZr dh tk;sxh rFkk lwph es vf/kd vad izkIr
djus dk uke igys j[kk tk;sxkA
1⁄4x1⁄2 lfefr vko';drkuqlkj f'k{kk fe=kas dh
la[;k dk vkadyu djsaxsA ;g la[;k 1% 40 ds
vk/kkj ij f'k{kdksa dh dqy la[;k esa ls dk;Zjr
f'k{kdksa dh la[;k dks ?kVkdj fudkyh tk;sxhA
rn~uqlkj 101 Nk= la[;k ij 3 rFkk blds mijkur
40 Nk=ksa dh iw.kZ la[;k ij ,d vfrfjDr f'k{kd dh
vko';drk dk vkdyu fd;k tk;sxkA
1⁄4?k1⁄2 fo|ky; esa dqy j[ks tkus okys f'k{kk fe=ksa
esa ls 50 izfr'kr efgyk;sa gksaxhA budk Hkh p;u
fcUnq 1⁄4[k1⁄2 esa bafxr vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxkA
1⁄431⁄2 vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa@vuqlwfpr tu tkfr;ksa
vU; fiNM+s oxksZ ,oa vU; Jsf.k;ksa es vkj{k.k gsrq
izpfyr fu;eksa@funsZ'kksa dk ikyu ;Fkkor lqfuf'pr
fd;k tk;sxkA
1⁄4p1⁄2 xzke f'k{kk lfefr ds lHkkifr o lfefr ds
fudV laca/kh dk p;u f'k{kk fe+= ds :i esa ugha
fd;k tk;sxkA
7- lafonk dh vof/k& f'k{kk fe= xzke f'k{kk
lfefr }kjk izLrko ikfjr dj pkyw 'kSf{kd l= ds
fy;s lafonk ij j[kk tk;sxkA tks ebZ ekg ds vfUre
fnol dks Lor% lekIr gks tk;sxhA
8- lafonk vof/k dk ekuns;& f'k{kk fe= dks
lafonk ij :0 1450@&izfrekg fu;r ekuns; ij
j[kk tk;sxkA
9- lafonk lekIr djus dh izfdz;k& 1⁄4v1⁄2 fdlh
Hkh f'k{kk fe= dk dk;Z larks"ktud u gksus dh n'kk
esa xzke f'k{kk lfefr] ds nks frgkbZ cgqer ls fyf[kr
izLrko ikfjr dj lafonk lekIr dj ldrh gSA xzke
f'k{kk lfefr }kjk bl laca/k esa fd;k x;k fu.kZ;
vfUre gksxkA
1⁄4c1⁄2 lEcfU/kr f'k{kk fe= dks ml ekg dk
ekunsg gksxk ftl ekg esa mlds fo:) xzke f'k{kk
lfefr }kjk lafonk lekIr djus ds vk'k; dk
izLrko ikfjr dj fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxk rFkk bl
izdkj gVk;s x;s f'k{kk fe= dks iqu% lsok dk volj
iznku ugha fd;k tk;sxkA
9.
Undisputedly, the resolution dated
19.5.2007 was unanimously passed by the
petitioner, Shiksha Samiti, in which it is
recorded that directions were issued to the
respondent no.5 on 1.4.2007, 16.4.2007 and
27.4.2007 to make improvement in discharge
of her duties and behaviour but she did not
adhere to it. She seldom used to come to the
school and whenever she came she engaged
herself only in talking and did not teach the
students.
She
beats
the
students.
Consequently, there was annoyance amongst
the guardians of the students. These facts, by
the aforesaid unanimous resolution dated
19.5.2007 the contract of the respondent no.5
106
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for engagement as Shiksha Mitra was
terminated in terms of clause 9 of the
aforesaid
Government
Order
dated
26.5.1999. The said resolution was not
challenged by the respondent no.5 before any
Court. Consequently, it attained finality.
10.
Unless the aforesaid resolution
dated 19.5.2007 is set aside by a competent
court, it was not open for the District
Magistrate to pass the impugned order
directing for payment of honorarium to the
respondent no.5 and renewal of her contract
of Shiksha Mitra. Thus the impugned order
dated
24.6.2011
passed
by
District
Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar is arbitrary,
illegal
and
without
jurisdiction
and,
therefore, deserves to be set aside.
11. In result, the writ petition
succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
impugned order dated 24.6.2011 passed
by District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar,
is set aside.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Writ-A No. 58456 of 2015
Smt. Savita Gupta
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pankaj Kr. Srivastava, Sasmita Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-payment
of salary-officiating Principal entitled for
salary of principal-in view of full Bench
decision-order impugned contrary to thatnot
sustainable-quashed-consequential
direction issued.
Held: Para-21
In addition to above, the law in respect
of payment of salary to officiating
principal is no more res integra. This
Court in a long line of decisions has held
that the officiating/ad hoc principal is
entitled to salary of principal's grade
while officiating on the post of the
principal.
Case Law discussed:
1980 UPLBEC 286; 2014 (8) ADJ 617(FB);
1982 UPLBEC 171; 1985 UPLBEC 113; (2014)
14 SCC 388; (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases
622
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)
1.
The petitioner is an officiating
Principal of an institution, namely, Arya
Shyama Balika Inter College, Bharthana,
District Etawah. The said institution is a
recognized and is under the grant-in-aid list of
the State Government. It is governed under the
provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 and the U.P. High Schools and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to
Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.
2. In the institution a vacancy occurred
in the office of the Principal. The petitioner,
who was senior-most Lecturer in the
institution was appointed as officiating
Principal. The appointment of the petitioner
was approved by the District Inspector of
Schools vide order dated 30.11.2007. The
District Inspector of Schools approved the
said appointment till the regular selection of
the Principal is made by the U.P. Secondary
Service Selection Board. A copy of the order
dated 30.11.2007 is on the record as
Annexure-2
to
the
writ
petition.