# Jeet Lal Saroj v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 783
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-25
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 10696 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jeet-lal-saroj-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50754
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Maintainability -
Objection to locus standi of the petitioner
challenging grant of the Lecturer pay scale
to the respondent, was raised - Legal
injury - Relevancy - Breach of GO dated
25.10.2000 - Effect - Duty of the Court -
Explained - Held, once the very basis of
according designation of Lecturer itself is
without any base then the very foundation
gets eroded - Hence, any benefit which
would be available to a non-deserving
Assistant Teacher would be detrimental to
the interest of the deserving Teacher with
regard to their future prospects - The
Courts of law have a solemn duty to
correct the errors - High Court rejected
the
objection
questioning
the
maintainability of writ. (Para 32)

B. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Concept of negative equality -
Lecturer
pay
scale
-
Entitlement
-
Respondent, not fulfilling the condition,
was accorded Lecturer pay scale on the
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ground that some other Assistant Teacher
is also getting it - Permissibility - Non
application of mind - Effect - Held, the
High Court cannot endorse the view taken
by the DIOS that since similar benefits
have been accorded to other Assistant
Teachers, the same is to be extended to
the fourth respondent particularly in view
of the fact that there is no concept of
negative equality as the Courts of law are
supposed to advance the justice in such a
manner that there is no discrimination
being meted out under Article 14 - Any
benefit extended illegally to the similar
circumstances cannot be a ground to
extend the same to an incumbent who
even otherwise is not entitled for the
same. (Para 36)

C.
Service
Law
-
Lecturer
pay
scale/Lecturer
post
-
Eligibility
for
entitlement - GOs dated 28.02.1990 and
25.10.2000 - In order to attain eligibility
for
being
conferred
the
benefits
of
Lecturer pay scale/ Lecturer post, one of
the
necessary eligibility
was
that
a
teacher is to consistently teach Arts,
Physical Training, Language, Craft etc. in
intermediate classes for 10 years in NonGovernmental
and
Aided
Secondary
School - Non-fulfillment of eligibility -
Effect - Held, 10 years of continuous
services while teaching in an intermediate
class as well as designation as a Lecturer
is to be seen in the light of clause (6) of
the GO dated 25.10.2000 - Clause (6) of
the GO dated 25.10.2000 would come in
the way of the fourth respondent making
him ineligible for according of the said
benefits. (Para 24 and 25)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,810 of 71,554. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39810 for what follows._

9 All. Jeet Lal Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
783
Managing
Committee,
Mayo
College,
Ajmer and others, (2018) 10 SCALE 638,
where in respect of dispute related to
termination of an employee of Mayo
College, Court held that employment was
governed
by
simple
contract
of
employment and, hence, no relief of
reinstatement
can
be
granted,
but
employee, if wrongfully terminated, may
claim damages.

16. So far as the relief with respect
to
reinstatement
of
the
petitioner
is
concerned, if employee is terminated or
contract of service is terminated, Court shall
not grant relief of reinstatement, i.e. specific
performance of contract of personal service,
as it is barred by the provisions of Specific
Relief Act, 1963, therefore, the relief as
prayed cannot be granted."

15. The case of the petitioners
here is nothing more than a contractual
engagement through a workforce supplier.
The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim any
relief of reinstatement, even if it be a case
of violation of natural justice.

12. So far as the stigma cast upon the
petitioners is concerned, the order of the
Managing Director of the Corporation does not,
in any manner, disqualify the petitioners from
contractual employment elsewhere. It is, at the
most, a decision to forbid the petitioners'
engagement in the Corporation's establishment.
It does not disable the petitioners from seeking
employment elsewhere.

13. In the entirety of circumstances,
no case for interference with the impugned
order or issue of the mandamus sought is
made out.

14. The petition fails and is
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 783
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 10696 of 2023

Jeet Lal Saroj ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Sneh Pandey, Sri
R.K. Ojha (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri Ramesh
Chandra Dwivedi, Sri Santosh Kumar
Mishra, Sri Pradeep Srivastava, Sri Anil
Bhushan (Sr. Adv.)

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Maintainability -
Objection to locus standi of the petitioner
challenging grant of the Lecturer pay scale
to the respondent, was raised - Legal
injury - Relevancy - Breach of GO dated
25.10.2000 - Effect - Duty of the Court -
Explained - Held, once the very basis of
according designation of Lecturer itself is
without any base then the very foundation
gets eroded - Hence, any benefit which
would be available to a non-deserving
Assistant Teacher would be detrimental to
the interest of the deserving Teacher with
regard to their future prospects - The
Courts of law have a solemn duty to
correct the errors - High Court rejected
the
objection
questioning
the
maintainability of writ. (Para 32)

B. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Concept of negative equality -
Lecturer
pay
scale
-
Entitlement
-
Respondent, not fulfilling the condition,
was accorded Lecturer pay scale on the
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ground that some other Assistant Teacher
is also getting it - Permissibility - Non
application of mind - Effect - Held, the
High Court cannot endorse the view taken
by the DIOS that since similar benefits
have been accorded to other Assistant
Teachers, the same is to be extended to
the fourth respondent particularly in view
of the fact that there is no concept of
negative equality as the Courts of law are
supposed to advance the justice in such a
manner that there is no discrimination
being meted out under Article 14 - Any
benefit extended illegally to the similar
circumstances cannot be a ground to
extend the same to an incumbent who
even otherwise is not entitled for the
same. (Para 36)

C.
Service
Law
-
Lecturer
pay
scale/Lecturer
post
-
Eligibility
for
entitlement - GOs dated 28.02.1990 and
25.10.2000 - In order to attain eligibility
for
being
conferred
the
benefits
of
Lecturer pay scale/ Lecturer post, one of
the
necessary eligibility
was
that
a
teacher is to consistently teach Arts,
Physical Training, Language, Craft etc. in
intermediate classes for 10 years in NonGovernmental
and
Aided
Secondary
School - Non-fulfillment of eligibility -
Effect - Held, 10 years of continuous
services while teaching in an intermediate
class as well as designation as a Lecturer
is to be seen in the light of clause (6) of
the GO dated 25.10.2000 - Clause (6) of
the GO dated 25.10.2000 would come in
the way of the fourth respondent making
him ineligible for according of the said
benefits. (Para 24 and 25)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Writ A No. 43794 of 2011; Vijay Bahadur
Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
14.12.2011

2. Writ A No. 16881 of 2012; Bani Singh Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 07.02.2019

3. Shiv Poojan Vs St. of U.P.; 2019 (6) ADJ 654
4. Special Appeal No. 48 of 2020; Smt. Krishna
Shri Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
11.02.2020

5. Writ A No. 49341 of 2008; Sangam Lal Vs St.
of U.P. decided on 05.10.2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu
Ojha,
learned
counsel
for
the
writ
petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
who appears for respondents No. 1 and 2,
Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel who
appears for respondent No. 3 and Sri
Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel who
has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent No. 4.

2. Since affidavits have been
exchanged between the parties and the
learned counsel for the parties do not
propose to file any further affidavits, thus,
with the consent of the parties, the writ
petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The facts of this case shorn off
unnecessary details as worded in the writ
petition are that the third respondent,
Sarswati
Shiksha
Sadan
Intermediate
College
Marrron,
Handia,
District
Prayagraj (in short respondent institution)
is a recognized and aided institution under
the
provisions
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the
provisions of U.P. (Services Selection
Board) Act, 1982 as well as Uttar Pradesh
High School and Intermediate Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable.

4. As per the writ petitioner, Jeet Lal
Saroj son of Sri Ram Shiromani Saroj, he
was selected and appointed as Lecturer
9 All. Jeet Lal Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
785
(Sanskrit) pursuant to the recruitment
exercise undertaken by the U.P. Secondary
Education Service Selection Board against
the Advertisement No. 1 of 2009 and the
writ petitioner was accorded placement in
Maharana Pratap Inter College Ram
Dayalganj, District Jaunpur by virtue of the
letter dated 08.12.2010. The writ petitioner
claims to have joined the post of Lecturer
(Sanskrit)
in
Maharana
Pratap
Inter
College, Ram Dayalganj, District Jaunpur
on 04.01.2011. It is further the case of the
writ petitioner that on his request, he was
transferred from Maharana Pratap Inter
College Ram Dayalganj, District Jaunpur to
the third respondent, Sarswati Shiksha
Sadan
Intermediate
College
Marrron,
Handia, District Prayagraj, by virtue of the
transfer order dated 28.06.2019 passed by
the Additional Director of Education
(Madhyamic), U.P., Prayagraj and the
petitioner assumed the charge on the post
of
Lecturer
(Sanskrit)
in
the
third
respondent institution on 04.07.2019. In
para 8 of the writ petition, it has been
pleaded that fourth respondent Lalmani son
of Hub Lal was selected as Assistant
Teacher (Physical Education) pursuant to
the recommendation of the U.P. Secondary
Education Service Selection Board dated
05.07.2006 and the consequential letter of
the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah
dated 19.08.2006. In para 9 of the writ
petition, it has been further asserted that the
fourth respondent was issued appointment
letter on 05.10.2006 pursuant whereto he
joined as Assistant Teacher (Physical
Education) in Zila Panchayat Inter College,
Haivara, Etawah.

5. Pleadings further reveal that the
fourth
respondent
preferred
an
application seeking transfer in the third
respondent
institution
in
pursuance
thereof he was transferred on 07.01.2016
as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education)
in the third respondent institution. In para
11 of the writ petition, further pleadings
have
been
made
that
the
fourth
respondent was accorded joining as
Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in
the
third
respondent
institution
on
01.02.2016.
According
to
the
writ
petitioner, the fourth respondent preferred
an application on 21.09.2018 for claiming
Lecturer pay and Lecturer post in
pursuance of the Government Orders
dated
28.02.1990
and
25.10.2000,
however, the second respondent, District
Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj by order
dated
26.11.2018
declined
to grant
Lecturer pay and Lecturer post on the
premise that the fourth respondent was
not fulfilling the conditions as stipulated
in Government Orders in question.
However, as per the writ petitioner, the
second respondent, District Inspector of
Schools, Prayagraj accorded selection
grade pay to the fourth respondent on
18.07.2018. Aggrieved against the nonaccording of Lecturer pay and Lecturer
post
since
05.10.2016
the
fourth
respondent is stated to have approached
the SC/ST Commission while drawing
proceedings, pursuant whereto the SC/ST
Commission sought clarification from the
Director
of
Education
(Madhyamic),
U.P., Prayagraj and thereafter by virtue of
the order dated 14.05.2023 the second
respondent, District Inspector of Schools,
Prayagraj entitled the fourth respondent
to be conferred the benefits of Lecturer
pay and Lecturer post with effect from
05.10.2016.

6. Questioning the order dated
14.05.2023 passed by the District Inspector
of Schools, Prayagraj, second respondent,
making the fourth respondent entitled for
Lecturer
pay
and
Lecturer
post
in
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pursuance of the Government Orders dated
28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000, the writ
petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

7. While entertaining the writ petition,
this Court on 11.07.2023 proceeded to pass
the following orders.-

"Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu
Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Santosh Kumar learned Standing Counsel
who appears for the respondent nos. 1 and
2 and Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior
Counsel
assisted
by
Sri
Pradeep
Srivastava, who appears for the fourth
respondent.

Sri Ojha has sought to argue that
the order dated 14.5.2023 passed by the
second respondent, District Inspector of
Schools,
Prayagraj
proceeds
on
misconception of facts and law particularly
in view of the fact that admittedly in the
order in question there is a recital to the
effect that earlier the claim of the fourth
respondent was turned down by the District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Prayagraj
on
26.11.2018 according to which it was held
that the fourth respondent is not entitled to
be conferred with the benefit of Lecturer
Pay/Lecturer Post since 5.10.2016 however
without there being any power of review
the order has been sought to be reviewed
that too on the behest of SC/ST Commission
in this regard. He further submits that as
per the recital contained in the order in
question
the
fourth
respondent
was
appointed as Assistant Teacher (Physical
Education) in Zila Panchayat Inter College
Haivara, Etawah on 5.10.2006 and he on
7.1.2016 was posted in the third respondent
institution and he was accorded joining on
1.2.2016 as Assistant Teacher (Physical
Education). Hence in the wake of the
Government Order dated 25th October,
2000 which even in fact takes note of the
earlier Government Order dated 20th
February, 1990 the twin conditions stands
applicable with regard to the fact that a
teacher is to impart education to the
students of Class-11 and 12 for a period
more than 10 years and also getting the
pay scale of Lecturer is only eligible to be
conferred with the said benefit.

It is further submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
entire exercise has been tailored in order to
give benefit to the fourth respondent on the
dictates and the directions of the SC/ST
Commission itself.

Sri Bhushan on the other hand
submits that, firstly, the writ petitioner has
no locus to maintain the present petition as
by virtue of grant of the said benefits only
re-designation /up-gradation has been
done with even in fact would not at this
present moment given any legal injury to
cloth the writ petitioner to put legal action
into motion. He has further referred to the
order impugned while inviting attention
towards the second last paragraph so as to
contend that might be the order do not
happily worded and the benefit has been
given to the fourth respondent on the basis
of the benefits accorded to Bacchu Lal and
even in fact the said benefits have been
accorded to number of incumbents and no
illegality whatsoever can be pointed out.

Sri Ojha on the other hand
submits that the question of legal injury so
sought to be propounded by the fourth
respondent is of no benefit to him as once a
benefit is not to be accorded as per the Act
and the Rules framed therein under and the
Government Order in question then the
said benefits become void ab initio from the
9 All. Jeet Lal Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
787
very inception as tomorrow on the strength
of the said order now the fourth respondent
shall stay his claim to become Principal
and get benefits in that regard.

Matter requires consideration.

Since
the
third
respondent
Committee of Management is not before
this court the learned counsel for the
petitioner shall serve the third respondent
by both ways within a period of three day.

Affidavit of compliance be filed
before the next date.

Learned Standing Counsel as
well
as
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents shall file their respective
responses within 10 days. Three days time
is allowed to the petitioner for filing
rejoinder affidavit.

Put up this case as a fresh case
on 21.7.2023.

Since the matter pertains to
Prayagraj itself and legal question is also
involved so it is expected that the learned
Standing counsel and the respondents shall
file their response before the next date.

Government Order dated 22nd
February, 1990 and set of documents
submitted by learned counsels is retained
on record as Appendix-1 and 2."

8. Pursuant to the order dated
11.07.2023, the order sheet depicts that the
notices were issued to the third respondent
since the first and second respondents were
represented
by
the
learned
Standing
Counsel and the fourth respondent by its
counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the learned Standing Counsel who
appears for the second respondent, District
Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj sworn by
him on 20.07.2023. A counter affidavit has
been filed by the third respondent,
Committee
of
Management,
Sarswati
Shiksha
Sadan
Intermediate
College
Marrron, Handia, District Prayagraj to
which a rejoinder affidavit is available on
record. A short counter affidavit has been
filed by the fourth respondent and in reply
thereto a short rejoinder affidavit has been
filed by the petitioner.

9. As noticed above, the learned
counsel for the rival parties do not propose
to file any further affidavit, thus, the matter
has been taken up for final disposal.

10. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha,
learned counsel for the writ petitioner while
assailing the order dated 14.05.2023 has
submitted that the order of the District
Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj, second
respondent cannot be sustained even for a
moment on various counts, firstly, the
Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and
25.10.2000 is not applicable in the case of
the fourth respondent as the fourth
respondent became eligible and suitable for
grant of Lecturer pay and Lecturer post the
issuance of the said Government Orders
and in view of the specific clause contained
in the Government Order dated 25.10.2000
eligibility is to be obtained prior or on the
date of issuance of the Government Order
dated 25.10.2000 and since the fourth
respondent attained eligibility post issuance
of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000,
thus, the fourth respondent is not entitled to
the benefits. Secondly, earlier also by
virtue of the order dated 26.11.2018 the
second respondent, District Inspector of
Schools, Prayagraj had declined to grant
Lecturer pay and Lecturer post to the fourth
respondent being non-eligible for the same,
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thus, in view of no change in the
circumstances
the
second
respondent,
District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj had
no power to review its own order, thirdly,
the order impugned in the writ petition
passed by the second respondent, District
Inspector of Schools has been passed at the
behest and the dictates of the SC/ST
Commission
as
there
has
been
no
independent application of mind, fourthly,
merely because some of the Assistant
Teachers have been made entitled to the
Lecturer pay and Lecturer grade in
pursuance of the Government Orders dated
28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000 illegally would
not be a ground to accord and extend the
said benefit to the fourth respondent,
fifthly,
the
fourth
respondent
even
otherwise is not eligible and qualified for
being appointed on the post of Assistant
Teacher (Physical Education) in that
regard.

11. Elaborating the said submission,
learned Senior Counsel for the writ
petitioner
has
submitted
that
the
Government
Order
dated
28.02.1990
granting pay scale in the case of C.T. Grade
Teacher subject to suitability and eligibility
as L.T. Grade and L.T. Grade Teacher to
Lecturer which stood followed in the
subsequent
Government
Order
dated
25.10.2000 does not imply that the said
benefit is to be granted for the time
immemorial, however, the Government
Order
dated
25.10.2000
contained
a
specific stipulation that the eligibility is to
be obtained by an Assistant Teacher
(Physical Education) till/on the date of
issuance of the Government Order dated
25.10.2000, since the fourth respondent as
per his own saying was appointed as
Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) on
05.10.2006 and one of the conditions was
10 years of continuous uninterrupted
service coupled with the grant of the pay
scale of Lecturer was a mandatory
condition for grant of Lecturer post but as
the fourth respondent obtained the said
eligibility post issuance of the Government
Order dated 25.10.2000 in the year 2016
i.e., 05.10.2016 the fourth respondent is not
entitled to the said benefits.

12. Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel
for the writ petitioner in order to buttress
his submission that the said facility/benefit
was available to the Assistant Teacher
(Physical Education) as one time measure
has sought to rely upon the judgment in
Writ A No. 43794 of 2011 (Vijay Bahadur
Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others) decided
on 14.12.2011 followed in Writ A No.
16881 of 2012 (Bani Singh Vs. State of
U.P. & Others) decided on 07.02.2019. He
also relies upon the judgment in the case of
Shiv Poojan Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2019 (6) ADJ 654.

13. Additionally, it is being sought to
be argued on behalf of the writ petitioner
that there is no concept of negative equality
as Article 14 of the Constitution of India
does not permit it but to the contrary
forbids it and further it has been argued that
the order passed by the second respondent,
District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj is
bereft of any reasons which can be said to
be within the four corners of law and
according to him, the order impugned in
the writ petition be set aside and the matter
be remitted back to the second respondent
to pass a fresh order. Though an attempt
has also been made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the writ petitioner questioning
the appointment of the writ petitioner as
Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) on
the ground that the fourth respondent is not
eligible and qualified for the said post but
pleadings to the said effect are missing in
9 All. Jeet Lal Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789
the writ petition and it sought to be
developed in the rejoinder affidavit.

14. Countering the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel for the writ
petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi has
sought to argue that the order passed by the
District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj
dated 14.05.2023 is perfectly followed in
accordance
with
law
and
no
fault
whatsoever can be attributed in this regard.
He submits that the Government Order
dated
28.02.1990
followed
in
the
Government
Order
dated
25.10.2000
clearly applies in the case of the fourth
respondent as according to him, the said
Government Order cannot be interpreted in
such a manner so as to exclude those
Assistant Teacher (Physical Education)
whose
appointment
was
valid
since
inception but in view of the fact that no
formal Government Order has been issued
specifically extending the benefits, as from
the conduct of the State Government, it is
very much clear that the State Government
is extending the said benefits while
granting Lecturer pay and Lecturer post to
the Assistant Teachers who have obtained
eligibility even post issuance of the
Government Order dated 25.10.2000. In a
nutshell, the argument is that the fourth
respondent is eligible in all respects as the
conditions precedent in the Government
Order dated 25.10.2000 stood fulfilled at
the end of the fourth respondent. It has also
been argued on behalf of the fourth
respondent that, in case, the logic of the
learned Senior Counsel for the writ
petitioner is taken into face value then it
would create havoc and undesired results
particularly when the future of the
Assistant Teachers (Physical Education)
would be kept in dark and uncertainty.
Submission
is
that once
the
fourth
respondent qualifies the eligibility test as
provided in the Government Orders then
clause 6 of the Government Order dated
25.10.2000 is to be ignored in that regard.

15. Much emphasis has been laid
down by the learned counsel for the fourth
respondent that the writ petitioner has even
otherwise no locus to institute and to
maintain the present proceedings in view of
the fact that the writ petitioner sustains no
legal injury as of now as mere grant of
Lecturer post and Lecturer pay scale would
not cause any legal injury so as to maintain
the present proceedings.

16. Contention of the learned counsel
for the fourth respondent is that grant of
Lecturer post and Lecturer pay scale are the
individual aspects confining to the benefits
being bestowed to a particular teacher and
the same cannot possibly cause an injury as
it is not a case wherein at the present stage
any seniority is being sought to be
disturbed or any issue of promotion is
involved particularly at a point the writ
petition is being preferred by the writ
petitioner. He, thus, submits that the writ
petition be dismissed with cost.

17. Sri Awasthi, learned counsel who
appears for the fourth respondent has
placed reliance upon the judgment in
Special Appeal No. 48 of 2020 (Smt.
Krishna Shri Gupta Vs. State of U.P. &
Others) decided on 11.02.2020 and Writ A
No. 49341 of 2008 (Sangam Lal Vs. State
of U.P.) decided on 05.10.2012.

18. Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel
who appears for the third respondent,
Committee of Management has supported
the case of the fourth respondent and he
adopts the submission of the learned
counsel for the fourth respondent. He,
however, while drawing attention towards
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the counter affidavit filed by him seeks to
argue that Annexure 2 at page 18 is a
document which happens to be the
certificate of Zila Panchayat Inter College
Haivara, Etawah which shows that the
fourth respondent had been teaching XI and
XII class. According to Sri Dwivedi, who
appears for the third respondent, the
benefits which have been accorded to the
fourth respondent in pursuance of the
Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and
25.10.2000 has been extended to many
Assistant Teachers and he, thus, relies upon
Annexure 4 at page 27 of the paper book.

19. Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned
Standing Counsel who appears for the first
and second respondents has argued that the
order of the second respondent, District
Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj cannot be
faulted in any manner whatsoever as the
same has been passed in furtherance to the
Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and
25.10.2000 and the fourth respondent is
entitled to the benefits which has been
made available to him.

20. Before embarking upon an inquiry
with regard to the legality and the validity
of the order passed by the second
respondent, District Inspector of Schools,
Prayagraj it would be apposite to notice the
Government Orders governing the filed.

Government
Order
dated
28.02.1990

कक्षा, व्यायाम स्र्क्षकों का वेतन

प्रेषक,

श्री र्रस्वन्दु, संयुक्त सस्चव, उत्तर प्रदेर्
र्ासन।

सेवा में,

स्र्क्षा स्नदेर्क, उत्तर प्रदेर्, लखनऊ/इलाहाबाद

स्र्क्षा [8] अनुिाि लखनऊः स्दनांक
िरवरी 28, 1990

स्वषय- वेतन पुनरीक्षण सस्मस्त, उत्तर प्रदेर्,
1989 की संथतुस्तयों पर स्लये िये स्नणशयानुसार अर्ासकीय
सहायता प्राप्त उच्चतर माध्यस्मक स्वद्यालयों/इण्टर कालेजों में र्ैस्क्षक
पदों पर पुनरीस्क्षत वेतनमानो की थवीकृस्त।

महोदय,

उपयुशक्त
स्वषयक
र्ासनादेर्
संख्या
4749/15-8-89/3087/89 स्दनांक 4-अक्टूबर 1989 के
पैरा-3 के अनुक्रम में मुझे यह कहने का स्नदेर् हुआ है स्क कला,
व्यायाम, िाषा, िृह स्वज्ञान, स्र्जप, संिीत, स्विाषा, पेंस्टंि टंकण,
आर्ुस्लस्प तिा क्राफ्ट स्वषयों को कक्षा 9-10 में पढाने वाले
सी०टी० ग्रेड में स्नधाशररत अहशता के अधीन स्नयुक्त अध्यापकों को
जब कक्षा 9-10 में पढाते हुए 10 वषश पूरे हो जायें तो उन्हें
एल०टी० ग्रेड के साधारण वेतनमान सं० 1400-40-1800-द०
रो०-50-2300 स्दया जाय।

2- उक्त स्वषयों को कक्षा 11-12 में पढाने
वाले एल०टी० ग्रेड के ऐसे अध्यापकों को स्जनकी स्नयुस्क्त स्नधाशररत
अहशता के अधीन हुई है- जब कक्षा 11-12 में पढाते हुए 10 वषश
पूरे हो जायें तो उन्हें प्रवक्ता वेतनमान रू० 1600-50-2300-द०
रो०-60-2600 स्दया जाय।

3- िस्वष्य में उपयुशक्त स्वषयों को पढाने वाले
अध्यापकों की एल०टी० एवं प्रवक्ता वेतनमान में स्नयुस्क्त के स्लए
सम्बस्न्धत व्यवसाय की अहशता के साि क्रमर्ः थनातक/थनातकोत्तर
अहशता स्नधाशररत की जाती है।

4- ये आदेर् स्वत्त (वेतन आयोि) अनुिाि-
2 के अर्ासकीय संख्या-वे०आ०(2) 55/10-90 स्दनांक 28
िरवरी,1990 में प्राप्त उनकी सहमस्त से जारी स्कये जा रहे हैं।

िवदीय

(र्रस्वन्दु) संयुक्त सस्चव

संलग्न प्राइमरी स्र्क्षकों का वेतन

संख्याः 1120/15-8-90/3087/89

 प्रषेक,

श्री र्रस्वन्दु, संयुक्त सस्चव, उत्तर प्रदेर् र्ासन।

Government Order dated
25.10.2000
9 All. Jeet Lal Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791

कला, व्यायाम, िाषा, स्र्जप आस्द अध्यापकों को प्रवक्ता
पदनाम स्दया जाना

संख्या-3203/15-8-2000,3287/90

प्रेषक,

सेवा में,

पी०के० झा,
स्र्क्षा स्नदेर्क (माध्यस्मक)

सस्चव,
 उत्तर प्रदेर्,लखनऊ/इलाहाबाद।

उत्तर प्रदेर् र्ासन।

स्र्क्षा (8) अनुिाि।
लखनऊ स्दनांकः 25
 अक्टूबर, 2000

स्वषयः- अर्ासकीय सहायता प्राप्त माध्यस्मक
स्वद्यालयों के कला, व्यायाम,िाषा स्र्जप आस्द स्वषयों के
अध्यापकों को प्रवक्ता पद की स्नधाशररत अहशता रहने पर प्रवक्ता पद
नाम स्दये जाने के सम्बन्ध में।

महोदय,

उपयुशक्त स्वषयक स्नदेर्ालय के पत्रांकःसंख्या-
(1)स्र्०/8744/2000-2001, स्दनांक 4 स्सतम्बर,2000 के
सन्दिश में मुझे यह कहने का स्नदेर् हुआ है स्क अर्ासकीय सहायता
प्राप्त ऐसे माध्यस्मक स्वद्यालयों (इण्टर कालेजों), जो कला, व्यायाम,
िाषा, स्र्जप आस्द स्वषयों से इण्टर थतर तक मान्यता प्राप्त है, में
कायशरत उक्त स्वषयों के ऐसे अध्यापकों जो स्नरन्तर 10 वषश से इण्टर
में पढा रहे हैं तिा प्रवक्ता वेतनमान प्राप्त कर रहे हैं, को स्नम्न र्तो
एवं प्रस्तबन्धों के अधीन "प्रवक्ता" पद नाम स्दये जाने की श्री
राज्यपाल सहषश थवीकृस्त प्रदान करते हैं।

(1) स्जन अर्ासकीय सहायता प्राप्त माध्यस्मक
स्वद्यालयों (इण्टर कालेजों) में कला, व्यायाम, िाषा, स्र्जप, संिीत
आस्द स्वषयों में प्रवक्ता के पद सृस्जत नही है, उनमें प्रवक्ता वेतनमान में
कायश करने वाले अध्यापकों को थनातक श्रेणी के मूल पद को समाप्त
करते हुए प्रवक्ता पद में उच्चीकृत स्कया जायेिा तिा प्रवक्ता वेतनमान
प्राप्त अध्यापकों को यस्द वे प्रवक्ता पद हेतु स्नधाशररत अहशता रखते हो,
उपयुशक्तानुसार उच्चीकृत पदों के सापेक्ष स्नयुक्त कर स्दया जायेिा।

(2) प्रवक्ता वेतनमान प्राप्त ऐसे अध्यापक जो प्रवक्ता
पद हेतु स्नधाशररत अहशता नही रखते हैं, वे पूवशवत् थनातक वेतन क्रम
की िांस्त स्र्क्षा प्रदान करते रहेंिे तिा उनकी सेवास्नवृस्त्त के उपरान्त
थनातक श्रेणी का पद उसी स्तस्ि से समाप्त होकर प्रवक्ता पद में
पररवस्तशत हो जायेिा।

(3) उपयुशक्त प्रथतर-1 एवं 2 में वस्णशत सुस्वधा
केवल उन्हीं अर्ासकीय सहायता प्राप्त माध्यस्मक स्वद्यालयों के
अध्यापकों को प्राप्त होिी, स्जन्हें सम्बस्न्धत स्वषय में इण्टर थतर की
मान्यता प्राप्त हो।

(4) सम्बस्न्धत अध्यापक को र्ासनादेर् संख्याः
1121/15-8-90/3087/89, स्दनांकः28 िरवरी, 1990 के
प्रथतर-3 के अधीन सम्बस्न्धत व्यवसाय की अहशता के साि थनाताकोत्तर
उपास्ध की अहशता रखना आवश्यक है।

(5) यह सुस्वधा केवल उन्हीं अध्यापकों को अनुमन्य
होिी, जो सम्बस्न्धत स्वषयों में कक्षा-11 एवं कक्षा 12 को पढाते हुये 10
वषश की स्नरन्तर संतोषजनक सेवा पूरी करते हुए प्रवक्ता का वेतनमान
1600-2660 (पुराना) वैयस्क्तक रूप से प्राप्त कर चुके हो।

(6) उक्त स्वषयों के केवल उन्हीं अध्यापकों को
प्रवक्ता पद नाम अनुमन्य होिा, जो इस आदेर् के जारी होने की
स्तस्ि तक स्नधाशररत अहशता पूरी कर चुके हों।

(7) प्रवक्ता पद पर कायशिार ग्रहण करने वाले
अध्यापकों की ज्येष्ठता उक्त पद पर कायशिार ग्रहण करने की
स्तस्ि से ही स्नधाशररत की जायेिी। उनकी पूवश सेवाए थनातक
श्रेणी के अध्यापक के रूप में मानी जायेिी तिा प्रवक्ता पद का
कायशिार ग्रहण करने के बाद थनातक श्रेणी की सेवाओं का कोई
लाि प्रवक्ता पद के चयन/प्रोन्नस्त वेतनमान स्दये जाने हेतु
अनुमन्य न होिा।

(8) पद नाम पररवस्तशत होने के िलथवरूप यस्द
स्कसी िी प्रकार का स्वत्तीय िार उत्पन्न होिा, तो उसका वहन राज्य
सरकार अिवा स्र्क्षा स्विाि के मुख्यालय द्वारा नही स्कया जायेिा
और न ही इस स्वषय में स्कसी िी प्रकार का अनुदान स्कसी िी श्रोत
से उपलब्ध कराया जायेिा।

(9) उपयुशक्तानुसार प्रवक्ता पद की अहशता रखने वाले
अध्यापकों को पद नाम स्दये जाने से पूवश उनके स्लस्खत अण्डर
टेस्कंि ले ली जायेिी, तास्क ज्येष्ठता स्नधाशरण आस्द के सम्बन्ध में
बाद में कोई स्ववाद उत्पन्न न हो।

2- यह आदेर् (स्वत्त आयोि) अनुिाि-2 के
अर्ासकीय संख्याः वे०आ०(2)/507/दस/2000, स्दनांक
25 अक्टूबर, 2000 में प्राप्त उनकी सहमस्त से स्निशत स्कये जा
रहे हैं।
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

िवदीय,

पी०के० झा,

सस्चव।

21. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record
carefully.

22.

Undisputedly,
the
third
respondent institution, Sarswati Shiksha
Sadan
Intermediate
College
Marrron,
Handia, District Prayagraj is an Inter
College governed under the provisions of
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the U.P. Act
No. 24 of 1971 stand applicable. It is also
not in dispute that the writ petitioner has
been appointed as Lecturer (Sanskrit) in
Maharana Pratap Inter College Ram
Dayalganj, District Jaunpur on 04.01.2011
and he was transferred to the third
respondent
institution
as
Lecturer
(Sanskrit) and he joined on 04.07.2019.
Likewise, the fourth respondent was
appointed as Assistant Teacher (Physical
Education) in Zila Panchayat Inter College
Haivara, District Etawah on 05.10.2006
and he was transferred on 07.01.2016 and
he joined on 01.02.2016 as Assistant
Teacher (Physical Education) in the third
respondent
institution.
The
bone
of
contention between the rival parties is
whether the fourth respondent is entitled to
be conferred with the benefit of Lecturer
pay scale and Lecturer post completion of
10 years of service in the light of
Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and
25.10.2000.
Though
Sri
Prabhakar
Awasthi, learned counsel who appears for
the fourth respondent has vehemently
argued that the writ petitioner has no locus
standi to institute and maintain the present
petition as he is not a person aggrieved in
view of the fact that the fourth respondent
has only been conferred that the benefit of
Lecturer pay scale and Lecturer post. The
question of locus standi is to be decided at
the first instance, however, in order to
arrive at the conclusion as to whether the
writ petitioner has any locus to maintain the
present proceedings this Court in the
present case is to bestow its consideration
upon the backgrounds and the sequence of
the facts then only a conclusion can be
arrived at.

23.

Basically,
there
are
two
Government Orders first, 28.02.1990 and
second,
25.10.2000.
So
far
as
the
Government Order dated 28.02.1990 is
concerned it spelt out in the subject column
that an approval has been granted pursuant
to the recommendations and the acceptance
of the Pay Commission by the State of
Uttar Pradesh of the year 1989 with regard
to
Non-Governmental
Aided
Higher
Secondary Schools/Inter Colleges with
regard to the teaching post, with respect to
revision of the pay scales. Thus, the said
Government Order talks about revision of
the pay scale. According to the said
Government Order in terms of para 3 of the
Government Order dated 04.10.1989 the
C.T. Grade Teachers who had been
teaching
Arts,
Physical
Training,
Language, Home Science, Craft, Music,
Tankan, Stenography and Craft in IX-X
Classes
and
were
having
required
qualifications after completion of 10 years
of services were made entitled to the pay
scale of L.T. Grade, Rs. 1400-40-1800-DA50-2300,
the
second
clause
of
the
Government
Order
dated
28.02.1990
further provided that those L.T. Grade
Teachers who had eligibility and who have
been teaching XI-XII Classes for the period
of 10 years they were to be accorded
Lecturer pay scale of Rs. 1600-50-2300EB-60-2600. Clause (3) of the said
Government Order further provided that in
9 All. Jeet Lal Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793
future the qualifications with respect to the
L.T. Grade and Lecturers would be
graduate/post
graduate.
Primarily,
the
Government
Order
dated
28.02.1990
provided
for
pay
scale,
however,
subsequently another Government Order
was issued on 25.10.2000 providing for the
grant of designation as "Lecturer" to the
teachers who were teaching Arts, Physical
Training, Literature, Crafts etc. in NonGovernmental Aided inter Colleges. The
said Government Order was issued in
context
of
the
letter
No.
(1)/Shi./8744/2000-2001
dated
4th
September, 2000 whereby His Excellency,
The Governor was pleased to accord the
designation of Lecturer subject to various
terms and conditions to the teachers who
have consistently been teaching Arts,
Physical Training, Language, Crafts etc. in
Inter College for 10 years in NonGovernmental Aided Secondary Schools
(Inter
Colleges)
recognized
upto
intermediate level with the subjects and are
drawing pay scale of lecturers as such.
Besides
the
other
clauses
of
the
Government
Order
dated
25.10.2000,
clause (6) further stipulated that the
benefits with regard to the above noted
subjects was confined to those teachers
who were fulfilling the eligibility on the
date of issuance of the Government Order
dated 25.10.2000.

24. Now the principal question which
falls for consideration before this Court is
whether the fourth respondent was entitled
to be conferred the benefit of the
designation "Lecturer" or not. It is not in
dispute that the fourth respondent was
appointed as Assistant Teacher (Physical
Education) on 05.10.2006, thus, in order to
attain eligibility for being conferred the
benefits of Lecturer pay scale/Lecturer post
one of the necessary eligibility was that a
teacher is to consistently teach Arts,
Physical Training, Language, Craft etc. in
intermediate classes for 10 years in NonGovernmental
and
Aided
Secondary
School
(Inter
Colleges)
upto
the
Intermediate level subjects and is drawing
pay scale of Lecturers as such.

25. A conjoint reading of various
provisions contained under the Government
Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000
would clearly show that the teacher in the
said subjects is to teach in the institution
which is recognized at the Intermediate
Level
and
imparting
education
continuously for the period of 10 years in
the Intermediate Classes that too on the
date of issuance of the Government Order
dated 25.10.2000. In order to analyze the
fact as to whether the fourth respondent
satisfied the conditions or not, this Court is
to remind itself to the chronology and the
dates and events of the working (teaching)
of the fourth respondent. Undisputed facts
reveal that the fourth respondent was
appointed on 05.10.2006 as Assistant
Teacher (Physical Education) in Zila
Panchayat Inter College Haivara, Etawah
he was accorded joining in the third
respondent
institution
on
01.02.2016
pursuant to the transfer order dated
07.01.2016 as Assistant Teacher (Physical
Education). By the order impugned in the
writ petition, the writ petitioner has been
accorded pay scale of Lecturer and
designation/post of Lecturer with effect
from 05.10.2016. Apparently the 10 years
of continuous services while teaching in an
intermediate class as well as designation as
a Lecturer is to be seen in the light of
clause (6) of the Government Order dated
25.10.2000. The net logical conclusion
which stands arrived is that the writ
petitioner as per the impugned order attains
eligibility on 05.10.2016 which is post
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issuance of the Government Order dated
25.10.2000,
thus,
clause
(6)
of
the
Government Order dated 25.10.2000 would
come in the way of the fourth respondent
making him ineligible for according of the
said benefits.

26. Nonetheless, the law in the
background of the Government Orders
dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000 has been
subject matter of scrutiny and interpretation
by this Court in the case of Vijay Bahadur
Singh (supra) wherein the following was
observed:-

"16. Government Order dated
25.10.2000 states that in all those non
Government
aided
colleges
where
Lecturers posts in the subject of Arts,
Physical Training, Language, Music etc.
has not been created(LT Grade) post shall
be upgraded as Lecturer's post and those
Teachers
who
possess
requisite
qualification for the post of Lecturer shall
be appointed on such upgraded post.
However, this benefit would be available
only to such Teachers who have been
imparting education in Class XI and XII
for the last ten years, had completed
satisfactory services and, have also been
granted Lecturer's pay scale personally.
Further the aforesaid benefit has been
confined to only those Teachers who
have completed requisite eligibility on
the date of issuance of Government
Order dated 25.10.2000. It also provides
that seniority of such Teachers would
count only from the date on which
person so promoted as Lecturer joins a
promoted post. His previous service
shall be treated to be a service rendered
as LT Grade Teacher and no benefit
shall be accorded for the purpose of
selection and promotional pay scale on
Lecturer's post.

17. Even if what is said by
respondent no.5 is treated to be correct, it
is evident that on the date of issuance of
Government Order dated 25.10.2000 he
had not completed ten years of service even
as Assistant Teacher(LT Grade) (P.T.I.)
and, therefore, para 6 of Government
Order
dated
25.10.2000
makes
him
ineligible for claiming any benefit under
the said Government Order . Para 6 reads
as under :

^^6- mDr fo"k;ksa ds dsoy mUgha
v/;kidksa dks izoDrk in uke vuqeU; gksxk] tks
bl vkns'k ds tkjh gksus dh frfFk rd fu/kkZfjr
vgZrk iwjh dj pqds gksaA**

" The designation of Lecturer
shall be admissible only to those Teachers
of the said subjects who have acquired the
prescribed eligibility/qualification by the
date of issuance of this Order." (English
Translation by Court)

18.