# Narendra Kumar Singh v. D.I.O.S., Allahabad & others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 776
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-31
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48448 of 2008
- **Bench:** B. Amit Sthalekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-kumar-singh-v-d-i-o-s-allahabad-others-42152
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226payment
of
salary-petitioner
when
engaged as Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit)-
was merely Intermediate-the institution
junior high school-upgraded in 1978brought under payment of salary on
ground
not
possessing
minimum
qualification-defence
of
G.O.
dated
10.03.1997 as appointment made prior
1978 not required training-admittedly
petitioner now possessing degree of M.A.
With B.Ed.-after deceleration of dying
cadre of C.T. Grade-became L.T. Grade
teacher-entitled for salary.

Held: Para 13

Thus in view of the settled legal position
that where such appointments between
1971 to 1978 could not be said to be
erroneous
only
because
the
only
qualification possessed by the Assistant
Teacher was Intermediate and approval
had not been obtained from the District
Basic Education Officer.
Case law discussed:
1999 (3) UPLBEC 2379

## Text

776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
circumstances, I do not find any error
apparent on the face of record in the
impugned award warranting interference.

9. Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48448 of 2008

Narendra Kumar Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
D.I.O.S., Allahabad & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Praful Bahadur
Sri Rakesh Bahadur

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C
Sri Waqar Haider Zaidi
Sri Anoop Mishra
Sri Salil Srivastava

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226payment
of
salary-petitioner
when
engaged as Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit)-
was merely Intermediate-the institution
junior high school-upgraded in 1978brought under payment of salary on
ground
not
possessing
minimum
qualification-defence
of
G.O.
dated
10.03.1997 as appointment made prior
1978 not required training-admittedly
petitioner now possessing degree of M.A.
With B.Ed.-after deceleration of dying
cadre of C.T. Grade-became L.T. Grade
teacher-entitled for salary.

Held: Para 13

Thus in view of the settled legal position
that where such appointments between
1971 to 1978 could not be said to be
erroneous
only
because
the
only
qualification possessed by the Assistant
Teacher was Intermediate and approval
had not been obtained from the District
Basic Education Officer.
Case law discussed:
1999 (3) UPLBEC 2379

(Delivered by Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition the
petitioner is challenging the order dated
12.6.2008 by which matter relating to the
appointment of the petitioner as Assistant
Teacher (Sanskrit) in the institution,
namely, Adarsh Uchhatar Madhyamik
Vidyalaya,
Malihan,
Phoolpur,
Allahabad and the approval granted to
his appointment has been rejected by the
Director Education( Secondary) U.P..

2. The case of the petitioner is that
he was appointed in the C.T.grade for
teaching Junior High School classes in
the
Adarsh
Uchhatar
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya,
Malihan,
Phoolpur,
Allahabad on 1.7.1976. The petitioner
was an Intermediate pass on the date of
appointment. The institution was granted
permanent recognition as Junior High
School with effect from 1.7.1978 vide
letter dated 11.8.1978 of the Deputy
Director
of
Education,
Region-IV,
Allahabad. Thereafter, it was upgraded to
High School level in terms of Section 7A
of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921 and granted permanent recognition
by
Additional
Secretary,
Secondary
Education Board by his letter dated
24.12.1980. The petitioner has also
passed M.A. B.Ed and claims to be
entitled to the L.T.grade in terms of the
G.O. dated 3.9.1986 upon the declaration
of the C.T. Grade to be dying cadre.

3. When he was not paid salary, the
petitioner along with two others filed
2 All] Narendra Kumar Singh V. D.I.O.S. Allahabad and others
777
Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.27713 of
1993. This writ petition was disposed of
by this Court by order dated 29.6.1993
with a direction to the District Inspector
of Schools to decide the representation of
the petitioners including the present
petitioner after giving him and the
Committee
of
Management
an
opportunity
of
being
heard.
In
compliance of the said order of this
Court, the District Inspector of Schools,
Allahabad reconsidered the matter and
passed fresh order dated 3.8.1993, which
is filed as Annexure-7 to the writ
petition. The finding recorded by the
District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad
in respect of the petitioner, which is at
page 53 of the writ petition clearly shows
that the petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) by the
Committee of Management on 1.7.1976
and that he did his M.A.(Sanskrit) in the
year
1982
and
passed
the
B.Ed.
examination in 1985.

4.

On
11.11.1980,
the
Principal/Manager sent a letter to the
Basic
Education
Officer,
Allahabad
giving the list of teachers already
working in the school. In this list the
name of the petitioner also finds mention
at Serial no.14 (Annexure-9 to the writ
petition). However, by his order dated
3.8.1993
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools has rejected the claim of the
petitioner for payment of salary on the
ground that in the approval stated to have
been granted by Basic Education Officer
by his letter dated 19.12.1980 the name
of the petitioner did not find mention.

5. Aggrieved by the said order the
petitioner filed Writ Petition no.894 of
1995. The Court after considering the
entire facts on record as well as original
records, which were produced in the
Court, held as follows:-

'The impugned order records that
only those teachers were paid salary
under the payment of Salary Act, 1971
whose name was in approved list sent by
the
Basic
Shiksha
Adhikari
on
19.12.1980 and the reason given for
rejecting the petitioner's claim is that his
name was not there in the so called letter
dated 19.12.1980. The record of the case
was summoned and examined. the letter
dated 19.12.1980 is nowhere on the
record at all.........

In view of the fact that a factual
controversy has developed during the
hearing of this case and for the first time
the respondents have come out with a
new
story
that
the
letter
dated
19.12.1980 is a forged letter. If, that is
so, all those teachers approved by way of
the letter dated 19.12.1980 were perhaps
not approved at all, their approval also
becomes doubtful. The matter, therefore,
requires careful reconsideration. The
matter is, therefore, remanded to the
Director of Education, U.P. to look and
enquire into the matter with regard to
the claims of the petitioner for grant of
salary with effect from 1.4.1991. he may
look into the matter and pass orders in
accordance with law within a period of
three months from the date of production
of a certified copy of this order and all
others concerned may also be given an
opportunity
of
hearing
before
the
respondent no.2 passes orders. The
impugned order dated 3.8.1993 is,
therefore, set aside.'

6. Thus this Court has recorded a
clear cut finding that the so called letter
dated 19.12.1980 stated to have been
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
issued by the Basic Education Officer
not being on record is a forged
document. On the contrary, the letter
dated 11.11.1980 by which approval was
granted to the appointment of the
petitioner is on record. It is in view of
this, clear cut finding that this matter was
remitted back with a direction to the
Director of Education, U.P. to enquire
into the matter with regard to the claim
of the petitioner for grant of salary with
effect from 1.4.1991.

7. In pursuance of the direction of
this Court dated 8.4.2008 that the the
impugned order dated 12.6.2008 has
been passed by the Director of Education
(Madhyamik), U.P., Allahabad.

8. I have heard Sri Rakesh
Bahadur,Sri
Anoop
Misra,
learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.3
and learned standing appearing for
respondent nos.1,2 and 4.

9.

The
facts
regarding
the
appointment of the petitioner in the year
1976 and the approval granted on
11.11.1980 and filing of the writ
petitions in between and the orders
passed by the Deputy Director of
Education,U.P. as well as the District
Inspector of Schools are not disputed
between the parties.

10. In para 6 of the counter
affidavit, it has been stated by learned
standing counsel that at the time of his
appointment on 1.7.1976 the petitioner
was only intermediate pass but on the
upgradation of the Junior High School he
was also required to possess the requisite
qualifications for the same. In para-6 of
the counter affidavit, it has been stated
that at the time of his appointment the
petitioner did not possess the requisite
qualification and that there was no
approval granted by the Basic Education
Officer. However, it is stated that at the
time of his appointment the petitioner
was untrained teacher and at the time
when the institution was upgraded to
High School in 1980 he was an untrained
teacher and his appointment had not been
approved by the District Basic Education
Officer, Allahabad.

11. From a perusal of the impugned
order as well as averments made in
paras-6 and 17 of the counter affidavit, it
is not in dispute that the petitioner was
an Intermediate pass at the time of his
initial appointment in the year 1976. The
institution was upgraded as Junior High
School in 1978 and thereafter, the U.P.
High School and Intermediate Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
other Employees) Act 1978 became
applicable. The institution was upgraded
as a High School in 1980 by order dated
24.12.1980. This Court in its order dated
8.4.2008 after calling for the original
record and perusing the same has
recorded a clear cut finding that in the
list which was forwarded by the
Committee of Management for approval
on 11.11.1980 the name of the petitioner
finds place at serial no.14. Document
filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition at
page 62 of the writ petition is the list
dated 11.11.1980 which clearly shows
the name of the petitioner at serial no.14.

12. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon a
decision of a learned Single Judge
reported in 1999 (3) UPLBEC 2379, Pati
Ram Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others
wherein this Court relying upon the
provisions of G.O. dated 10.3.1971 has
2 All] Narendra Kumar Singh V. D.I.O.S. Allahabad and others
779
held that appointments prior 1978 did not
require training as training was not an
essential
qualification
and
that
an
untrained teacher could be appointed
between 1971-78. This Court also placed
reliance upon a decision of this Court in
1990 UPLBEC 351, Rikh Pal Singh vs.
District
Basic
Education
Board,
Allahabad and held that 1978 Rules
were not retrospective, and therefore,
appointment of an untrained teacher prior
to these Rules could not be held to be
bad in law and that an untrained teacher
could be appointed permanently between
1971 and 1978. This Court has held as
follows:-

"6. I would take up the case of Pati
Ram Yadav as he was intermediate only
on the date of his appointment and if he
is found entitled for absorption and
payment of salary then there would not
be any difficulty for petitioners in Writ
No.8166 of 1994 as on the date of their
appointment they were either graduate
or post-graduate. Pati Ram during
service with the permission of the
authorities
obtained
degree
of
M.A.(History), M.A. (Sociology) and
training certificate from the Government
Basic Training College, Lucknow on
16.7.1979. But the question is whether
the ADE was justified in recording the
finding that Pati Ram was neither
eligible nor qualified to be appointed as
assistant teacher in 1972. He has given
three reasons in support of his finding
one
that
the
petitioner
was
not
educationally qualified, second he was
untrained
and
the
third
that
his
appointment was not approved by the
basic education officer. Each reason
given by him is either contrary to the
provisions which were applicable to
junior high schools at the time of
petitioner's appointment or it is against
facts. The ADE has not referred to any
provision in the regulation or schedule
appended to it, which may indicate that
the
minimum
qualification
for
an
assistant teacher in junior high school
was more than intermediate. Even when
U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules
were enacted in 1978 (in brief Rules,
1978)
the
minimum
educational
qualification prescribed for appointment
as assistant teacher was intermediate
only. The petitioner, Pati Ram, was thus
educationally qualified to be appointed
as assistant teacher in Junior High
School. It may now be examined whether
an untrained teacher could be appointed
permanently
and
whether
such
appointment
was
illegal.
Before
10.3.1971 the services of assistant
teachers in junior high schools were
governed by provisions in the Education
Code. Chapter V dealt with recognised
junior and senior basic schools. It had
two Sections A and B. The former dealt
with school for boys and latter for girls.
No qualification was prescribed for an
assistant teacher in boys' schools. But
paragraph 196 in B section provided that
no untrained teacher shall be appointed
permanently in a recognized school. This
did not apply to boy's school. There was
thus no bar on permanent appointment
for an untrained teacher in boys schools.
Even if it is assumed that the Regulation
196 applied to boys schools the doubt if
any stood removed when the State
Government issued the order in 1971.
The order purported to revise the salary
of assistant teachers in junior high
schools but it made obligatory for any
untrained teacher appointed after the
notification
was
issued
to
acquire
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
training certificate within five years of
his appointment otherwise he would be
paid the initial salary only. There was
thus no restriction on the management of
a Junior School in appointing an
untrained teacher permanently. Pati Ram
having been appointed permanently, as
is clear from his appointment order,
after the Government Order of 10.3.1971
had been issued his appointment was in
accordance with law it was neither
irregular nor illegal. Training became
essential
qualification
under
Rules,
1978. The appointment of petitioner,
however, being prior to it and in
accordance with law in force on the date
of his appointment it did not suffer from
any defect. In Rikhi Pal Singh vs. District
Basic Education Board, Allahabad, 1990
UPLBEC 351, it has been held by this
Court that the provisions in 1978 Rules
were
not
retrospective
therefore
appointment of an untrained teacher
prior to these rules could not be
terminated. These rules did not in any
manner effect the appointments made
after Government Order of 1971. An
untrained teacher, therefore, could be
appointed permanently between 1971
and 1978. The appointment letters of all
the petitioners clearly show that their
appointment was permanent."

13. Thus in view of the settled legal
position that where such appointments
between 1971 to 1978 could not be said
to be erroneous only because the only
qualification possessed by the Assistant
Teacher was Intermediate and approval
had not been obtained from the District
Basic Education Officer.

14. In my opinion, the impugned
order dated 12.6.2008 is absolutely
illegal and erroneous and cannot survive.
The writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 12.6.2008 is,
therefore, quashed. Respondents no.1
and 2 will take take steps for payment of
salary to the petitioner within a period of
three months from the date a certified
copy of this order is received by them.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51944 of 2006

Smt. Asha Rani

 .Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jagdish Pathak
Sri Sanjay K. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri ripendra Mishra

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226compassionate
appointment-earlier
petitioner given consent to appoint his
son-subsequently considering his bad
habits not loyal to family-she claimed
appointment for herself-remain pending
for more than 3 years-suddenly rejection
on ground of delay-not proper.

Held: Para 14

The Authority concerned is directed to
consider the case of petitioner on merit
and while considering so the competent
authority shall examine as to whether
the
family
of
deceased
employee
continues to be under financial distress
and hardship and the family of deceased
employee cannot be relieved from such
financial hardship and distress unless the
compassionate appointment is offered to