# Rambha Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1111
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-27
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 229 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rambha-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51967
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Validity of appointment
of Headmaster in a recognized Basic School
- U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 - The Uttar
Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High School) (Recruitment and Condition
of Service of Teacher) Rules, 1978 - Rule
7(2) - Minority and Non-Aided Junior High
School- The Constitution of India - Article
14 and 16 - Recruitment process initiated
without
resolution
of
Committee
of
Management - Favouritism and bias in
recruitment - Cancellation of appointment
-Principles of natural justice - Relative of
appointing authority.

Challenge to the appointment of appellant as
Headmaster of Gautam Purva Madhyamik
Vidyalaya & subsequent cancellation of her
appointment by the District Basic Education
Officer - Single Judge dismissed writ petition -
ground
-
recruitment
process
was
not
transparent and fair- District Basic Education
Officer's decision to cancel the approval of the
petitioner's appointment justified due to the
irregularities in the recruitment process. (Para -
1 to 6), 15

HELD: - Recruitment process must be initiated
with a resolution passed by the managing
committee & must be fair, transparent, and free
from favouritism and bias. Appointing authority
must follow the principles of natural justice while
making administrative decisions. Appeal does not
require any interference, as the recruitment
process was invalid and not transparent.(Para -
15)

Special Appeal dismissed. ( E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Sister Meera Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2013) 10 ADJ 310

## Text

5 All. Rambha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1111
appellant/petitioner as has been metted out
to her by the order which was impugned
before the Writ Court, would be a clear case
of discrimination, which the Constitution
abhors in letter and spirit.

37. The reasons in the order, which
were impugned before the writ Court, are
not sustainable in view of the above
discussion. The learned Writ Court has also
lost sight of the rule position and the
extraordinary
situation
as
discussed
hereinabove.

38. As regards the reliance placed
by Shri V. P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel
upon a judgment of Uttarakhand High Court
reported in (2015) 6 SERVLR 85; Krishna
Kant Pandey Vs. State of Uttrakhan and
Ors., there was no case of discrimination in
the said case, as has been set up by the
appellant/petitioner herein, successfully.
Moreover, that was a case, where the
petitioners before Uttarakhand High Court
had not joined hence the Court held that they
had no right under Fundamental Rule 170,
but, here in this case, similarly placed
persons who have not joined PMHS, have
been granted the benefit by the State of U.P.
vide Government Order dated 14.03.2024,
therefore, the said judgment does not apply
here.

39. At this stage, Shri V. P. Nag,
learned Standing Counsel submits that the
order of rejection of the leave in respect of
the appellant/petitioner is dated 13.01.2024,
whereas, the benefit granted to the new
recruits of P.M.H.S. is by subsequent
Government Order dated 14.03.2024. This
hardly improves the situation. This has
nothing to do with the point of time when
the claim of the appellant/petitioner was
rejected and the date on which the request of
new recruits to P.M.H.S. was acceded. It is a
case of unfair treatment or unfair policy. It is
a clear case of differential treatment for
grant of study leave. There can be no
rational and intelligible criteria for treating
the two classes differently.

40. We do not consider the plea of
the appellant- petitioner that extraordinary
leave would also be admissible, as, we are
of the considered opinion that not only it
was permissible to grant study leave to the
appellant,this was a fit case where study
leave should have been granted.

41. For all these reasons, we set
aside the judgment of Writ Court as also the
order impugned before it.

42. The Director, Ayurvedic
Services is directed to issue necessary orders
afresh in the light of what has been
discussed hereinabove within a period of
three weeks from the date a certified copy of
this order is submitted. The appellant is also
permitted to move a fresh application, if
required.

43. Accordingly, the Special Appeal
as also the writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1111
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Special Appeal No. 229 of 2019

Rambha Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gyanendra Kumar Singh, Radha Kant Ojha
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C., Parmatma Nand Ojha, Sanjay Chaturvedi,
Satendra Tirpathi

(A) Service Law - Validity of appointment
of Headmaster in a recognized Basic School
- U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 - The Uttar
Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High School) (Recruitment and Condition
of Service of Teacher) Rules, 1978 - Rule
7(2) - Minority and Non-Aided Junior High
School- The Constitution of India - Article
14 and 16 - Recruitment process initiated
without
resolution
of
Committee
of
Management - Favouritism and bias in
recruitment - Cancellation of appointment
-Principles of natural justice - Relative of
appointing authority.

Challenge to the appointment of appellant as
Headmaster of Gautam Purva Madhyamik
Vidyalaya & subsequent cancellation of her
appointment by the District Basic Education
Officer - Single Judge dismissed writ petition -
ground
-
recruitment
process
was
not
transparent and fair- District Basic Education
Officer's decision to cancel the approval of the
petitioner's appointment justified due to the
irregularities in the recruitment process. (Para -
1 to 6), 15

HELD: - Recruitment process must be initiated
with a resolution passed by the managing
committee & must be fair, transparent, and free
from favouritism and bias. Appointing authority
must follow the principles of natural justice while
making administrative decisions. Appeal does not
require any interference, as the recruitment
process was invalid and not transparent.(Para -
15)

Special Appeal dismissed. ( E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Sister Meera Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2013) 10 ADJ 310

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)
1. This intra court appeal is directed
against judgment and order dated 7.12.2018,
passed by the learned Single Judge in WritA No. 12781 of 2018; whereby the challenge
laid to the order of District Basic Education
Officer, Ballia, dated 19th May, 2018, is
rejected.

2. Admitted facts, as are noticed by
the learned Single Judge, are that the post of
Headmaster in Gautam Purva Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Basti Mundera, District Ballia
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution')
fell vacant on 30th June, 2014 due to
retirement of the earlier Headmaster. The
Institution
is
recognized
under
the
provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act,
1972 and is receiving financial aid from the
State. The Manager of the Institution,
namely Sanjay Singh resigned on 24th
April, 2015 and the Deputy Manager,
Hridya Nand Singh assumed charge of the
office of Manager of the Committee of
Management pursuant to resolution of
Committee of Management, dated 31st May,
2015. Papers for attestation of signatures of
Hridya Nand Singh as Manager were sent to
District Basic Education Officer, who
approved his signatures on 6.6.2015. Even
before
attestation
of
his
signatures/recognition as the Manager of the
Institution, Hridya Nand Singh initiated the
process for appointment to the post of
Headmaster by seeking permission to
advertise the post vide his letter dated 1st
June, 2015. On the very day when signatures
of Hridya Nand Singh were attested i.e. 6th
June, 2015 the District Basic Education
Officer also granted him permission to fill
up the post of Headmaster. On the very next
day i.e. 7th June, 2015, the vacancy was
advertised in two Daily Newspapers namely
'Swatantra Chetna' and 'Anchalik Swar'.
The selection proceedings were undertaken
by the Committee of Management and
5 All. Rambha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1113
ultimately the writ petitioner came to be
selected and appointed as Headmistress on
26th June, 2015. Papers were sent for grant
of approval to District Basic Education
Officer, who approved the selection on 29th
June, 2015. The petitioner claims to have
assumed the charge on the office of
Headmistress on 10th July, 2015.

3. Selection and appointment of
petitioner was challenged by one Madhubala
Singh, by filing Writ Petition No. 41678 of
2015, who claimed that she was not allowed to
participate in the selection though she was
eligible and had duly applied pursuant to the
advertisement in question. Another candidate,
namely
Ashutosh
Prasad
Singh
also
challenged the selection and appointment of
petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 61437 of
2015 on grounds similar to Madhubala Singh.
The appointment of petitioner was directed to
abide by the outcome of the writ petitions. It
transpires that the District Basic Education
Officer called for an explanation from the
managing committee on various aspects
relating to appointment offered to petitioner
vide notice dated 29th April, 2017. The
committee of management responded to the
show cause notice vide its reply dated 2nd
May, 2017. It is thereafter that the District
Basic Education Officer has passed the order
dated 3rd May, 2017. The order records that:

(i) Even before the signatures of the
Manager were attested, he had initiated the
process
of
recruitment,
which
was
impermissible;
(ii) Proper notice has not been given
to
the
candidates
before
making
appointment so as to extend undue favour to
limited persons;
(iii) Educational qualification and
age for appointment have not been specified
in the advertisement;
(iv) Although, seven persons are
said to have applied, but it is not clarified as
to how their applications were received;
(v) The order also records that
though notice has been sent to the Institution
on 29.4.2017 calling for reply by 2nd May,
2017, but till 5.00 pm on 3.5.2017, no
explanation was received in the office of
District Basic Education Officer, Ballia
from the petitioner.

4. The order of District Basic
Education Officer, dated 3rd May, 2017,
came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.
25292 of 2017 wherein an interim relief was
granted to the petitioner. This interim order
was challenged in Special appeal filed by
Ashutosh Prasad Singh being Special
Appeal No. 372 of 2017. The special appeal
came to be disposed of on 31st July, 2017
vide following orders:-

"We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and examined the records of the
writ petitions as well as this special appeal.
We are in agreement with the
contention raised on behalf of Smt. Rambha
Singh that once the selection has been
approved and she had joined and was
actually working any order of cancellation
of approval granted earlier must have
preceded an opportunity to the teacher
concerned. Any order passed without
following such procedure would be in
violation of principles of natural justice and
and therefore legally not sustainable.
We are of the opinion that the order
passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated
3.5.2017 can not be sustained being in
violation of principles of natural justice
whatever may be the basis for passing such
an order. Smt. Rambha Singh was at least
entitled to be informed of the grounds on
which it was proposed to cancel the approval
and to have her say in the matter.
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
This leads the court to issue as to
what should be the next step once the order
is found to be in violation of principles of
natural justice. In our opinion having regard
to the allegations made and the enquiry
report received qua Smt. Rambha Singh
being a relative of Sri Rakesh Singh, BSA as
well as in respect of the mode and manner of
the selection of Smt. Rambha Singh being
illegal as contended before us by the counsel
for the appellant, we are of the opinion that
the interest of substantial justice would be
served by requiring the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari to pass a fresh order in the matter
of selection and appointment of Smt.
Rambha Singh after affording opportunity
of hearing to the Committee of Management
of the institution, Smt. Rambha Singh and
after examining the original records as may
be available in the office of Basic Shiksha
Adhikari or may made available qua the
selection in question. The appellants are also
at liberty to file their representation
disclosing the grounds on which they
propose to challenge the selection within
two weeks from today along with certified
copy of this order. The Basic Shiksha
Adhikari shall complete the exercise as
indicated above within four weeks thereafter
by means of a reasoned and speaking order.
We are not expressing any opinion
on any of the issues which have been raised
by the parties inasmuch all such issues needs
examination of records and a finding of fact
is to be returned. It is for this purpose that
the matter is being asked to be examined by
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.
The writ petitions i.e. Writ-A
Nos.25292 of 2017, 61437 of 2015 and
Writ-A No. 41687 of 2015 and the special
appeal stand disposed of. All consequential
actions shall be taken accordingly."

5. Pursuant to the directions issued
in Special Appeal No. 372 of 2017, the
District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, has
reiterated the previous order cancelling the
approval granted to the appointment of the
petitioner vide his order dated 20.8.2017.
This order records that even before
signatures were attested of the then
Manager, Hridya Nand Singh, he had
initiated the process of appointment by
asking for permission from the District
Basic
Education
Officer,
which
was
impermissible.

6. A subsequent meeting has been
called of the General Body of the Institution
in which appointment of petitioner as
Headmistress has been held invalid. The
District Basic Education Officer, therefore,
concluded that appointment of petitioner has
not been made in accordance with law.

7. It transpires that the order of the
District Basic Education Officer was
challenged in Writ Petition No. 10596 of
2018. Contesting parties appeared in the writ
petition and the District Basic Education
Officer was permitted to revisit the matter
after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the parties. It is thereafter that an order has
been passed by the District Basic Education
Officer on 19th May, 2018. It is this order
which was under challenge in the writ
petition and has been sustained by the
learned Single Judge, while dismissing the
writ petition. Learned Single Judge has
concluded that the advertisement pursuant to
which the petitioner has been appointed was
not in accordance with the Rule 7(2) of the
Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools
(Junior High School)(Recruitment and
Condition of Service of Teacher) Rules,
1978. Learned Single Judge has also found
the appointment of the petitioner to be a
result of favouritism and consequently
denial of equality of opportunity under
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
5 All. Rambha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1115
India. In para 34, the learned Single Judge
has observed as under:-

"34. The manner in which the then
Manager had proceeded to advertise the post
and make selection clearly establishes that
the whole exercise was carried out in a
predetermined and bias manner to appoint
the petitioner on the post of Headmistress.
The then Committee of Management sent
the signatures for approval to the BSA only
on 02.06.2015 but before that, a request for
carrying out the advertisement for filling up
the post of Headmaster/Headmistress was
sent. The approval was granted on
06.06.2015. The advertisement was sent for
publication before that and it was published
on 06.06.2015 in two newspapers. It has also
come on records that the petitioner happens
to be relative of Rakesh Singh which is the
clear finding in the punishment order dated
29.05.2017 of Shri Rakesh Singh. This
Court, therefore, cannot and should not
come in the way when the corrective steps
have
been
taken
for
declaring
the
appointment of the petitioner as invalid and
not
in
accordance
with
law.
The
appointment of the petitioner is tainted and
against the statutory Rules and the allegation
of bias of the then BSA is also not without
substance. The petitioner is holding a public
office, but her appointment is tainted and,
therefore, this Court does not find any
illegality or irregularity in the impugned
order whereby the petitioner's appointment
has been held to be invalid."

8 Challenging the judgment of
learned Single Judge, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel submits that the process of
recruitment was held in a fair and
transparent manner; the advertisement was
already made and mere non-specification of
qualification or age of recruitment cannot be
a ground to question it in view of the
judgment of this Court in Sister Meera Vs.
State of U.P. and others, (2013) 10 ADJ 310;
petitioner is not in the prohibited degree of
relationship
with
the
District
Basic
Education Officer Rakesh Singh and merely
because she may have been distantly related
can be no ground to invalidate her
appointment.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
submits that since appellant has already
been appointed and has worked for several
years, as such, there is no reason to interfere
with her appointment, particularly when she
possesses requisite qualification for the post
and
procedure
for
appointment
has
otherwise been complied with.

9. Sri P.N. Ojha as well as Sri J.P.
Singh, learned counsel for the respondents
on the other hand submits that the entire
process of recruitment lacked fairness and
transparency and was at best a farce. It is
further stated that the manner in which
appointment was made clearly showed that
its object was to extend undue favour to the
petitioner and once learned Single Judge has
found substance in the reasons assigned by
the District Basic Education Officer for
cancellation of appointment no interference
in its be made. Learned State Counsel has
also adopted the submissions made by Sri
P.N. Ojha as well as Sri J.P. Singh.

10. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and have carefully perused the
materials on record. It is not in dispute that
the post of Headmaster in the Institution fell
vacant on 30th June, 2014 due to
superannuation of the earlier Headmaster. It
transpires that the elected Manager of the
Institution Sri Sanjay Singh resigned on
24th April, 2015. Hridya Nand Singh was
allowed to work as Manager for the
remaining term by the Managing Committee
vide its resolution dated 31st May, 2015.
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Signatures of Deputy Manager Hridya Nand
Singh admittedly came to be recognized on
6th June, 2015. It is even before signatures
of the Deputy Manager were attested as the
Manager of the Institution that the process
of recruitment was initiated by seeking
permission to advertise the post.

11. The resolution of the Managing
Committee of Institution authorising Hridya
Nand Singh to function as Manager came to
be approved only on 6th June, 2015. It is
even before it that Hridya Nand Singh made
a request for grant of permission to make
appointment on the post of Headmaster. The
District Basic Education Officer Rakesh
Singh granted this permission on the 6th
June, 2015 itself. The advertisement was
also published in two newspapers on 7th
June, 2015. From the manner in which the
process of recruitment has commenced even
before the signature of Manager was attested
prima facie indicates haste on part of the
authorities in commencing the recruitment
process. Although educational authority has
doubted legality of appointment on the
ground that advertisement did not specify
the age and qualification for recruitment, but
even if this issue is kept aside, as we find
substance in the argument of Sri Ojha that
non-specification of age and qualification
may not be fatal to the cause of the petitioner
in view of the law laid down by this Court in
Sister Meera Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2013 (10) ADJ 310, yet there are other
glaring facts which requires consideration in
the matter.

12. Soon after the appointment was
offered to the writ petitioner two petitions
came to be filed before the High Court by
Ashutosh Prasad Singh and Madhubala
Singh, who stated that their applications for
appointment
have
been
arbitrarily
overlooked. Records of the appeal would go
to show that Ashutosh Prasad Singh and
Madhubala Singh have informed the District
Basic Education Officer that they had made
application for appointment to the post of
Headmaster and had also attempted to
appear before the selection committee but
they were not permitted to do so. They were
informed that the date of interview has been
altered. Later on they came to know that the
petitioner has been appointed. Complaint
was made by these two persons before the
concerned
authorities
by
sending
representation. There are written letters on
record sent by Hridya Nand Singh in his
capacity as Manager, dated 25.6.2015
stating that letter by registered post are
received from the aforesaid two persons
namely
Ashutosh
Prasad
Singh
and
Madhubala
Singh
containing
their
educational and training qualification. They
were informed that the purpose of sending
their letter is not clear therefore these letters
are being returned. The letters sent to both
these persons are on identical terms and are
extracted hereinafter:-

"करयरमिय- प्रबन्िक, गौतर् पूवम र्रध्यदर्क दवद्यरिय
बस्ती र्ुडेरर-रसडर, बदियर
श्री आशुतोष दसांह
पुत् श्री सरनर
पो० हरजीपुर
जनपि गरजीपुर,
दवद्यरिय र्ें आपके नरर् कर एक रदजस्टडम डरक दिफरफर
प्ररप्त हुआ है दजसर्ें आपके नरर् कर शैदक्षक एवां प्रदशक्षण योवयतर िरर
गयर है। शैदक्षक एवां प्रदशक्षण योवयतर दवद्यरिय को दकस
आशय/उद्देश्य हेतु प्रेदषत दकयर गयर कर कोई उल्िेख नहीं होने के
कररण रदजस्टडम डरक दिफरफर के र्रध्यर् से प्रेदषत शैदक्षक एवां
प्रदशक्षण योवयतर औदचत्यहीन है।
अतः आप द्वररर प्रेदषत शैदक्षक एवां प्रदशक्षण योवयतर र्ूि
रूप से व दकयर जरतर है।
ह० ह्रियरनन्ि दसांह
प्रबन्िक
गौतर् पूवम र्रध्यदर्क दवद्यरिय बस्ती
र्ुडेरर एवां रसडर बदियर
5 All. Sehrun Nisha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1117
बस्ती र्ुडेे़रर बदियर
दिनरांक 25-6-2015

13. The Manager of the Institution has
also sent a representation to the District Basic
Education Officer on 11.5.2018 stating that no
resolution was ever passed by the managing
committee to initiate the process of recruitment;
applications sent by Smt. Madhubala Singh and
Ashutosh Prasad Singh are available on record,
but their educational certificates are not available
in the office; quality point marks of other
applicants namely Ajay Kumar Singh and
Vandana Mishra are higher than that of petitioner
but educational certificates of these persons are
also not available. Maximum marks at the
interview had been given to the petitioner; all
other candidates, who secured higher quality
marks have been shown absent; the manager has
also specified that permission for initiating the
recruitment as well as approval of petitioner's
appointment has been granted by District Basic
Education Officer Rakesh Singh. His father-inlaw is Rajendra Singh. Brother of Rajendra
Singh is Ravindra, who is married in village
Rohana. Petitioner's husband is Dharmendra
Pratap Singh. Real sister of Dharmendra Pratap
Singh (husband of writ petitioner) is married to
Ravindra, who is the real brother of father-in-law
of Rakesh Singh.

14. Learned Single Judge has noticed
the fact that disciplinary inquiry was initiated
against the then District Basic Education Officer
Rakesh Singh and Charge No. 5 relating to
appointment being offered to his relatives,
including the present petitioner, has been proved.
Punishment order has also been passed against
Rakesh Singh on 29.5.2017.

15. In the facts of the case, we find that
the process of recruitment has been initiated in
undue hot haste without any resolution passed by
the managing committee for initiating the
process of recruitment on the post of
Headmaster.
Admittedly
the
appointing
authority is the committee of management and in
the absence of its authorisation the process of
recruitment would be without authority of law.
The process was otherwise initiated by the
Deputy Manager, even before his signatures
were formally attested as Manager. The
recruitment process does not appear to be fair
and transparent, inasmuch as, all persons with
higher quality point marks are shown absent and
two of the candidates, who had applied for
appointment, have not been permitted to take
part in the recruitment. Allegation of favouritism
otherwise surfaces against the then District Basic
Education Officer. Even if we accept the
contention
of
the
petitioner
that
the
advertisement for appointment was valid
notwithstanding the fact the qualification and
age are not specified, yet we find that the
recruitment process cannot be said to be wholly
transparent. In such circumstances, the decision
of the District Basic Education Officer to cancel
the approval of petitioner's appointment and
dismissal of the writ petition by the learned
Single Judge would not require any interference
in the present appeal.

16. The appeal consequently fails and
is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1117
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No.6402 of 2024

Sehrun Nisha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.B. Singh