# Ramkesh Verma & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 748
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-22
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 1135 of 2009
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramkesh-verma-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46800
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Basic Schools (Junior High
School) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 - Rules 7,
8, 9 and 10 - Appointment on Teacher post
- Selection process - Non-following thereof
- No Prior Approval - Effect - Neither
papers in regard to selection were produced
before the District Basic Education Officer
nor the finding return has been challenged
by enclosing the papers in the writ petition
- No case of deemed approval pleaded -
There is no provision for the grant of past
approval after the appointment of the
petitioners
by
the
Committee
of
Management - Held, Finding recorded in
regard to non-following the procedure
prescribed under 1978 Rules is just and
valid - Mere relying on an order of
regularization, the petitioner cannot be
granted relief for the payment of salary from
theSt. Exchequer. (Para 8, 9, 13 and 14)
B. Civil Law - U.P. Recognised Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees)
Rules, 1984 - Rule 15 - Appointment on
Peon post - Selection process - Nonfollowing thereof - No Prior Approval -
Effect - Finding of not following the
provision has not been challenged by
enclosing
supporting
documents
to
establish appointment - No case of
deemed approval pleaded - There is no
provision for the grant of past approval
after the appointment of the petitioners
by the Committee of Management - Held,
mere relying on an order of regularization,
the petitioner cannot be granted relief for
the
payment
of
salary
from
theSt.
Exchequer. (Para 10, 11, 13 and 14)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19.04.2016 which has been sought to be
reviewed and delay of 1335 days from the
date of dismissal of Special Leave Petition
on 05.07.2017, what we find is that the
State has once again sought shelter in usual
slow
pace
of
State
machinery
in
preparation of office notes, movement of
files, non-availability of certain necessary
information, non-availability of concerned
officials/officers etc. The said explanation
cannot be said to be sufficient in view of
the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Living Media India Ltd. &
Anr. (supra). The State while seeking
condonation of delay in this case has gone
even to the extent of taking ground of
certain "unavoidable" and "unspoken"
circumstances. In our considered opinion
such
"unavoidable"
and
"unspoken"
circumstances cannot be taken shelter of to
claim condonation of delay in approaching
the Courts. In fact the course adopted by
the State in preferring the review petition
reflects gross negligence and inaction
which in our considered opinion cannot be
said to be bona fide. We are aware that a
liberal view needs to be adopted by the
Courts to advance substantial justice.
However, in the facts and circumstances of
this case, what we find is that the approach
of the State all along has been casual and
that of manifest negligence. As observed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Living
Media India Ltd. & Anr. (supra), law of
limitation binds every one including the
Government.

18. From the date date of judgment till
dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the
Hon'ble Apex Court on the ground of delay
of 252 days, the same period cannot be
reconsidered by this Court for condoning the
delay. From the date of dismissal of Special
Leave Petition i.e. on 05.07.2017 till
December, 2020 when the matter was
referred to the Finance Department, the
reasons indicating the delay for that period is
not a satisfactory explanation for delay in
filing this review petition. The reasons
indicated in the affidavit are only the details
of filing of the writ petitions by the other
similarly situated persons and the judgment
in the special appeals. During that period the
review applicants were not stopped by any
provision or law to file the review petition.

19. Considering the fact that the State
has grossly failed to offer any proper
explanation for huge delay other than
mentioning different dates on which notes
were prepared and files have been moving
from one desk to other and from one officer
to other, in our opinion the explanation
furnished are neither sufficient nor acceptable
to condone such a huge delay.

20. In the light of the discussions made
above, the review petition fails and is hereby
dismissed on the ground of delay.

21. Before parting with the case, we
may express our solemn hope and trust that
the State authorities shall in future be guided
by the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Living Media India Ltd.
& Anr. (supra) and in the case of Central
Tibetan Schools Admins & Ors. (supra).
----------
(2021)02ILR A748
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Service Single No. 1135 of 2009

Ramkesh Verma & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
2 All. Ramkesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
749
Counsel for the Petitioners:
P.N.
Singh
Kaushik,
Krishna
Madhav
Shukla, Pankaj Patel

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Jyotinjay Verma, R.P. Verma

A. Civil Law - U.P. Basic Schools (Junior High
School) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 - Rules 7,
8, 9 and 10 - Appointment on Teacher post
- Selection process - Non-following thereof
- No Prior Approval - Effect - Neither
papers in regard to selection were produced
before the District Basic Education Officer
nor the finding return has been challenged
by enclosing the papers in the writ petition
- No case of deemed approval pleaded -
There is no provision for the grant of past
approval after the appointment of the
petitioners
by
the
Committee
of
Management - Held, Finding recorded in
regard to non-following the procedure
prescribed under 1978 Rules is just and
valid - Mere relying on an order of
regularization, the petitioner cannot be
granted relief for the payment of salary from
theSt. Exchequer. (Para 8, 9, 13 and 14)
B. Civil Law - U.P. Recognised Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees)
Rules, 1984 - Rule 15 - Appointment on
Peon post - Selection process - Nonfollowing thereof - No Prior Approval -
Effect - Finding of not following the
provision has not been challenged by
enclosing
supporting
documents
to
establish appointment - No case of
deemed approval pleaded - There is no
provision for the grant of past approval
after the appointment of the petitioners
by the Committee of Management - Held,
mere relying on an order of regularization,
the petitioner cannot be granted relief for
the
payment
of
salary
from
theSt.
Exchequer. (Para 10, 11, 13 and 14)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Writ-A No. 64346 of 2007, Munendra Singh &
ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2. Ram Pal Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported in (2016) 2 UPLBEC 1607
(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Anurag Kumar Maurya,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Jyotinjay
Verma and Sri Neeraj Chaurasia, both
representing respondent no.4.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioners are challenging an
order dated 18.11.2008 whereby the claim
for the payment of salary of the petitioners
has been rejected on the ground that the
procedure prescribed for selection and
appointment of the petitioners has not been
followed nor the Manager of the Institution
has submitted papers for consideration of
claim of the petitioners before Assistant
Regional Director of Education, Basic,
Faizabad Region, Faizabad.

3. The petitioners claim that petitioner
no.1 was granted appointment on the post
of Assistant Teacher on 25.6.1981 in the
institution and in pursuance thereof, he
joined on 1.7.1981. The petitioner no.2 was
granted appointment on the post of Peon by
the
Committee
of
Management
on
22.6.1986 and he joined in the institution
on 1.7.1986. Appointment of the petitioners
has been regularized vide orders dated
2.11.1988 and 14.9.1992 respectively. The
institution was brought within the purview
of Payment of Salary Act on 2.12.2006.
The claim was set up by the petitioners for
disbursement
of
salary
from
State
Exchequer on the ground that they have
been duly appointed teacher and Group-'D'
employee of the institution and are entitled
for the payment of salary from the State
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Exchequer. When no order was passed on
the claim set up by them, Writ Petition
No.5679 (SS) of 2008 was filed before this
Court which was finally allowed with the
direction to the Competent Authority to
pass an appropriate order on 15.9.2008.
After service of the copy of the order
passed by this Court, direction was issued
to the parties to file necessary documents to
establish selection and appointment on the
post of Assistant Teacher and Group-D
post.
Respondent
no.3,
after
giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties, passed
an order on 18.11.2008 by recording a
finding that in spite of direction issued to
the Management to submit relevant papers
in regard to selection and appointment of
the petitioners, the same were not made
available. In conclusion part of the
impugned order, it has been recorded that
the society was registered on 17.8.1981
which was renewed on 17.8.2005 for the
period of five years. The institution which
was run and managed by the Society, was
granted temporary recognition by the
District
Basic
Education
Officer
on
30.6.1982 and permanent recognition to the
institution was granted by the Assistant
Regional Director of Education Officer,
Faizabad Region, Faizabad on 25.7.1987.
In pursuance to the Government Order
issued for taking the institution on the
grand-in-aid list, applications were invited
and in pursuance thereof, the institution in
question applied for taking the institution in
grant-in-aid list. The Manager of the
Institution was directed to place necessary
documents in regard to the selection and
appointment of the petitioners vide letter
dated 4.1.2007 along with copy of the
approval but no documents in regard to the
selection and appointment were produced
by the Manager of the institution. The
approval was also not in accordance with
the provisions of the U.P. Basic Schools
(Junior High School) (Recruitment and
Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules,
1978 (hereinafter referred to as '1978
Rules'). The appointment for the Group-D
employee
namely
Sri
Ram
Prakash
Vishwarama was also not found in
accordance with U.P. Recognised Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Ministerial
Staff
and
Group
''D'
Employees)
Rules,
1984
(hereinafter
referred to as '1984 Rules'), therefore no
concurrence for payment of salary was
accorded by the Competent Authority. At
the time of hearing in the matter, the
petitioners as well as Manager were
granted time to place relevant documents to
establish their selection and evidence to
establish appointment in accordance with
1978 Rules, but at the said point of time
also, no documentary evidence in regard to
the
selection
and
appointment
were
produced by the petitioner as well as
Manager of the Institution, therefore, the
claim for appointment and salary has been
rejected by respondent no.3 vide impugned
order dated 18.11.2008.

4. Assailing the aforesaid order,
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that although the petitioners
are not having requisite documents to
establish their appointment in accordance
with 1978 Rules as well as 1984 Rules
governing appointment of Class-III and
Class-IV post, the order of regularization
establishes their claim for the payment of
salary from State Exchequer. The statement
of fact in regard to grant of regularization
has been made in paragraph16 of the writ
petition
which
has
been
denied
in
paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit filed
by the respondent no.4 (District Basic
Education Officer). His next submission is
that the controversy in regard to the order
2 All. Ramkesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
751
of approval and order of regularization
came before this Court for consideration
that whether the order of regularization
comes under the definition of approval or
not,
in
Writ-A
No.64346
of
2007
(Munendra Singh and others v. State of
U.P. and others), wherein this Court
recorded that the order of regularization
also terms as order of approval.

Similar view was also taken in the
case of Ram Pal Singh and others v.
State of U.P. and others reported in
(2016) 2 UPLBEC 1607 which was
affirmed vide judgment and order dated
3.12.2013 passed by this Court. On the said
basis, submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that once the services of the
petitioner have been regularized vide orders
dated
2.11.1988
and
14.9.1992
respectively, then it is admitted that
appointment of the petitioners was made by
following the procedure prescribed under
1978 Rules as well 1984 Rules. He next
submits that it is responsibility of the
Manager and the Educational Authorities to
keep the proceedings in safe hands in their
offices
in
regard
to
selection
and
appointment and if required, to place before
Educational Authority. The petitioners are
not expected to place the material of
selection which was conducted by the
Committee of Management by constituting
the selection committee and to make
available to the District Basic Education
Officer thereafter.

5. On the other hand, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that under 1978 Rules as well as
1984 Rules, a full-fledged procedure has
been prescribed in regard to selection of
teacher
and
Group-C
and
Group-D
employee to be appointed in Recognized
Junior High School. They have invited
attention of this Court on the provisions
contained in Sections 7 to 10 to submit
that the order of appointment issued to
petitioner no.1 on 25.6.1981 clearly
demonstrates the fact that the same was
issued in violation of Rule 10 of the1978
Rules. The Rules prescribe that before
issuing appointment letter to the selected
candidates, approval from the District
Basic Education is required. It is not the
case
of
the
petitioners
that
after
submission of papers before the District
Basic Education Officer, no order was
passed for granting approval to the
selection
and
appointment
of
the
petitioners and after expiry of 30 days'
period, it is deemed that the approval has
been accorded and then the Committee of
Management issued appointment letter.

6. Next submission of learned counsel
for the respondents is that in the impugned
order, clear cut finding has been return that
no papers in regard to the selection and
appointment of the petitioner were placed
before District Basic Education Oficer by
the Manager nor the same were placed at
the time of hearing before the Assistant
Regional Director of Education (Basic),
thus his submission is that the petitioners
have not challenged the finding return by
the respondent no.2 in this regard in the
writ petition that the same is based on
incorrect statement of fact or perverse in
nature. Last submission of learned counsel
for the respondents is that the impugned
order is just and valid order and does not
suffer from infirmity or illegality. Reliance
placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is merely on the ground that
their services were regularized, which
cannot be termed to be legally appointed
teacher and Class-IV employee, therefore,
the judgment relied upon is not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record.

8. To resolve the controversy, firstly,
the validity of the appointment is to be seen
that the appointment has been made by
following the procedure prescribed under
1978 Rules or 1984 Rules or not.

To examine the same, provisions of
Sections 7 to 10 of the 1978 Rules are being
extracted hereinbelow:

"7. Advertisement of vacancy. - [(1) No
vacancy shall be filled, except after its
advertisement in at least two newspapers one
of whom must have adequate circulation all
over the State and the other in a locality the
school is situated.]

(2)
In
every
advertisement
and
intimation under clause (1), the Management
shall give particulars as to the name of the
post, the minimum qualifications and agelimit, if any, prescribed for such post and the
last date for receipt of applications in
pursuance of such advertisement.

8. Age limit. - The minimum age shall
on the first day of July of the academic year
following next after the year in which the
advertisement of the vacancy is made under
Rule 7 be :

(1) In relation to the post of an Assistant
Teacher 21 years.

(2) In relation to the post of Head
Master 30 years.]

[9.
Selection
Committee.
-
For
appointment of Headmaster and Assistant
Teacher in institutions other than minority
institutions and in the minority institutions,
tire Management shall constitute a Selection
Committee as follows :]

A - Institutions other than Minority
Institutions :

(i) For the post of headmaster :

(1) Manager; .

(2) a nominee of the District Basic
Education Officer;

(3) a nominee of the Management;

(ii) For the post of Assistant Teacher;
.
(1) Manager;

(2) Headmaster of the recognised
school in which appointment is to be made;

(3) a nominee of the District Basic
Education Officer; .

B - Minority Institutions : .

(i) For the post of Headmaster;

(1) Manager;

(2) two nominees of Management; .

(ii) For the post of Assistant Teacher;

(1) Manager; .

(2) Headmaster of the recognised
school in which the appointment is to be
made;

[(3) A specialist in the subject
nominee by the District Basic Education
Officer.]

10. Procedure for selection. - (1) The
Selection
Committee
shall,
after
interviewing such candidates as appear
before it on a date to be fixed by it in this
behalf, of which due intimation shall be
given to all the candidates, prepare a list
containing as far as possible the names, in
order of preference, of three candidates
found to be suitable for appointment.

(2) The list prepared under clause (1)
shall also contain particulars regarding the
date of birth, academic qualifications and
teaching experience of the candidates and
shall be signed by all the members of the
Selection Committee.

(3) The Selection Committee shall, as
soon as possible, forward such list,
together
with
the
minutes
of
the
proceedings of the Committee to the
management.

(4) The Manager shall within one
week from the date of receipt of the papers
under clause (3) send a copy of the list to
the District Basic Education Officer.
2 All. Ramkesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
753

(5) (i) If the District Basic Education
Officer is satisfied that -

(a) the candidates recommended by
the Selection Committee possess the
minimum qualifications prescribed for the
post;

(b) the procedure laid down in these
rules for the selection of Headmaster or
Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, has
been followed he shall accord approval to
the recommendations made by the Selection
Committee and shall communicate his
decision to the Management within two
weeks from the date of receipt of the papers
under
clause
(4).
(ii) If the District Basic Education Officer
is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return
the papers to the Management with the
direction
that
the
matter
shall
be
reconsidered by the Selection Committee.

(iii) If the District Basic Education
Officer does not communicate his decision
within one month from the date of receipt
of the papers under clause (4), he shall be
deemed to have accorded approval to the
recommendations made by the Selection
Committee."

9. On perusal of the provisions
contained, it has been provided that the
vacancy shall be advertised in two well
known newspapers viz. one in widely
circulated newspaper and one in local
newspaper; thereafter, there is procedure to
constitution of selection committee; after
making selection, the papers ought to be
submitted before District Basic Education
Officer to accord approval; and then the
committee of management is empowered to
grant appointment.

Here, in the present case, neither
papers in regard to selection were produced
before respondent no.3 nor the finding
return has been challenged by enclosing the
papers before this Court in the writ petition,
therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that
the finding recorded in regard to nonfollowing the procedure prescribed under
1978 Rules is just and valid. It is further
clarified in the finding that the institution
was granted temporary recognition on
30.6.1982 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari of
the district concerned. The petitioners
claimed his appointment before the order of
recognition to the institution on 25.6.1981.
Counsel for the petitioners has not stated
anywhere that without recognition of an
institution, how the appointment of the
petitioners has been made in the institution
which was not in existence in the year
1981.

10. In regard to the appointment of
the petitioner no.2, procedure of selection
contained under 1984 Rules is quoted
below:

"15. Procedure for selection. - (1) The
Selection
Committee
shall,
after
interviewing such candidates as appear
before it on a date fixed by it in this behalf,
of which due intimation shall be given to
all the candidates, prepare a list containing
as far as possible the names, in order of
preference, of three candidates found to be
suitable for appointment.

(2) The list prepared under clause (1)
shall also contain particulars regarding the
date of birth, academic qualifications and
shall be signed by all the members of the
Selection Committee.

(3) The Selection Committee shall as
soon as possible forward such list, together
with the minutes of the proceedings of the
Committee to the Management.

(4) The Manager shall, within one
week from date of receipt of the papers
under clause (3), send a copy of the list to
the District Basic Education Officer.
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(5) (i) If the District Basic Education
Officer is satisfied that -

(a) the candidates recommended by
the Selection Committee possess the
minimum qualifications prescribed for the
post;

(b) the procedure laid down in these
rules for the selection of Ministerial staff
and Group 'D' employees, as the case may
be, has been followed, he shall accord
approval to the recommendations made by
the
Selection
Committee
and
shall
communicate
his
decision
to
the
management within two weeks from the
date of receipt of the papers under clause
(4).

(ii) If the District Basic Education
Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he
shall return the papers to the Management
with the direction that the matter shall be
reconsidered by the Selection Committee.

(iii) If the District Basic Education
Officer does not communicate his decision
within one month from the date of receipt
of the papers under clause (4), he shall be
deemed to have accorded approval to the
recommendations made by the Selection
Committee."

11. There is finding of fact in the
order impugned that the appointment of the
petitioner no.2 was also not made in
accordance with the provisions contained
under 1984 Rules. In the writ petition, the
findings
return
have
also
not
been
challenged
by
enclosing
supporting
documents to establish the appointment of
petitioner no.2. The statement made in
paragraph 16 in regard to petitioner no.2 is
also based only on the premise of an order
of regularization which is dated 14.9.1992.
In absence of any pleading challenging the
finding of fact recorded by respondent
no.3, mere relying on an order of
regularization, the petitioner no.2 cannot be
granted relief for the payment of salary
from
the
State
Exchequer
without
producing necessary documents to establish
his appointment in the eye of law.

12. Counsel for the petitioners has
relied upon the judgment rendered in the
case of Munendra Singh and others
(supra), wherein there was material to
establish their appointment and the subject
matter was that whether taking notice of
regularization can be termed as approval in
the eye of law or not and on the basis of
relevant documents and records in the
aforesaid case, it was established that by
following procedure prescribed, they were
granted appointment.

13. Rule 10 of the 1978 Rules as well
as 1984 Rules clearly stipulates that
without prior approval of the District Basic
Education Officer, no appointment letter
can be issued to the petitioners. It is
established that petitioner no.1 was granted
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher on 25.6.1981 and petitioner no.2
was granted appointment on the post of
Peon on 22.6.1986. It is further evident that
it is not the case of the petitioners that after
selection, papers were submitted before the
District Basic Education Officer for the
grant of approval and due to non-grant of
approval within one month, the selection
shall be deemed to be approved in view of
Rule 10 (5) of the 1978 Rules. They only
relied on the orders of regularization passed
on 2.11.1988 and 14.9.1992 and on the said
basis, submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that once the order of
regularization had been passed, every
discrepancy in making selection washed
out and on the basis of regularization, the
petitioners are entitled for the payment of
salary. The submission advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is
2 All. Ramkesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
755
misplaced in view of the reason that the
statutory provisions prescribed under the
Rules do not permit for the grant of
regularization/
approval
after
the
appointment.

14. On perusal of the provisions of
Rules quoted hereinabove, there is no
provision for the grant of past approval
after the appointment of the petitioners
by the Committee
of Management.
Firstly,
selection
proceeding
placed
before the District Basic Education
Officer is required to be approval and
thereafter, the Committee of Management
can issue appointment letter to the
selected candidates. In the present case,
the selection of the petitioners have not
been approved as per the Rules referred
above nor there is a case that due to nonpassing of order passed by the District
Basic Education Officer on the papers
submitted after selection, the appointment
is deemed to have been approved.

15. The ratio of judgment relied
upon does not apply to the present facts
and circumstances of the case and is
distinguishable in nature. In the judgment
relied upon, this Court, on consideration
of relevant provisions of 1978 Rules,
came to the conclusion that there is no
difference in order of approval or order of
regularization. It is the case of the
petitioners
that
the
District
Basic
Education Officer has passed the order of
regularization
after
issuance
of
appointment letter and after joining on
the post in the institution. Under the
Rules, there is no such provision for the
grant of past approval. Assistant Regional
Director of Education, Basic, Faizabad
Region,
Faizabad
had
recorded
categorical finding that the Committee of
Management in spite of notice issued to
produce the necessary documents of
selection, could not produce the same
before him as well as there is no material
to establish that prior to issuance of
appointment letter to the petitioners,
papers were submitted before the District
Basic Education Officer for the grant of
approval. The finding has been recorded
by the Assistant Regional Director of
Education,
Basic,
Faizabad
Region,
Faizabad in the order dated 18.11.2008
that the Committee of Management has
not submitted papers before the District
Basic Education Officer of the selection
for the grant of approval. It has further
been recorded that in spite of notice
issued to the petitioners, no papers were
submitted during the course of hearing at
the level of the Assistant Regional
Director of Education. The finding
recorded in this regard has not been
challenged by the petitioners in the writ
petition, therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the finding return is just and
valid.

15. On consideration of overall
facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the judgment relied upon, I am of
the view that the Assistant Regional
Director of Education, Basic, Faizabad
Region, Faizabad has not committed any
illegality in passing the impugned order.
The impugned order records finding of
fact which has not been challenged in
the writ petition. Therefore, this Court
refuses
to
exercise
discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

16. Accordingly, this writ petition
lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

18. No order as to costs.
----------
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)02ILR A756
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Service Single No. 2207 of 2013

Sant Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prem Shanker Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Arvind Kumar Misra, Jyoti Sikka,
Rajendra
Pratap
Singh,
Rajiv
Singh
Chauhan, Surendra Pratap Singh

A. Civil Law- U.P. Basic Schools (Junior
High School) (Recruitment and Conditions
of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 -
Rules 7, 8, 9 and 10 - Appointment on
Teacher
post
-
Selection
process
-
Deemed Approval - Paper sent after
selection - No order of District Basic
Education Officer - Effect - District Basic
Education Officer (DBEO) did not pass any
order within a period of one month, the
selection made on the post of Assistant
Teacher or Head Master shall be deemed
to be approved. (Para 24)
B. Service Law - Appointment on Teacher
post - Selection - Complaint by third
person - Re-advertisement - Validity -
Mala fide of District Basic Education
Officer (DBEO) - Held, Only to dislodge
the claim of the petitioner of deemed
approval, a concocted story has been
framed by the DBEO - DBEO appears to be
interested in selection of complainant -
Finding returned by the DBEO in this
regard, held, perverse in nature and not
liable to be sustained. (Para 31, 33 and
35)
Writ Petition allowed .(E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for
respondent No.1, Sri Rajiv Singh Chauhan,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3
and Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner is challenging the order dated
04.03.2013,
whereby
his
claim
for
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher (Scheduled Caste) as well as claim
for payment of salary has been rejected.

3. Brief fact of the case is that there is
an institution in the name of Janta Nimna
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Byoli, Islamabad,
District Unnao, which is recognized under
the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act,
1972 and is receiving grant in aid from the
State Government, thus, the provisions of
U.P. Junior High School (Payment of
Salaries of Teachers and other Employees)
Act, 1978 as well as the provisions of The
U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment
And
Conditions Of Service Of Teachers) Rules,
1978 are applicable to the said institution.

4. In the institution, there are six
sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers
including the post of Head Master. Two
teachers namely Ram Khelawan and Jagat
Narayan retired from service on attaining
the age of superannuation on 30.06.2001
and
30.06.2007,
respectively.
The
committee of management filled aforesaid
two vacancies under the category of Other
Backward Class (OBC) and Scheduled
Caste (SC) and requested to the District
Basic Education Officer (for short, 'DBEO')