# Smt. Rekha Devi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1834
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-16
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6757 of 2014
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rekha-devi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54732
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

_Characters 0–39,942 of 40,921. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39942 for what follows._

1834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of dependent children. It is pertinent to note that there is no finding by the authority comparing the
income of the deceased at the time of death and income of the family after his death. The authority
has failed to undertake this crucial exercise, rendering the decision arbitrary.

18. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for
making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the
dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood . It only enables the family
of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

19. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that engagement as Mukhya Sewika/Anganwadi worker does not disentitle the
family members of the deceased employees from compassionate appointment and the respondent
nos. 2 and 3 have failed to consider the financial hardships of the family.

20. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 21.09.2013
contained as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition is quashed.

20. A direction is issued to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the
respondents annexing therewith all the necessary documents annexed with this petition along with
certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order and in case such a representation is filed within the period prescribed by this
Court, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents in favour of the petitioner in
accordance with the observations made above and in accordance with law within a further period of
two months thereafter.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1834
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ A No. 6757 of 2014

Smt. Rekha Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
Whether the appointments of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers were legally valid and 'deemed approved'
by operation of law, despite the District Basic Education Officer's subsequent rejection?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers anf other
Employees) Act, 1978: Section 12; Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978: Rule 9, 10 - The three petitioners
4 All. Smt. Rekha Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1835
were selected and appointed as Assistant Teachers following proper local newspaper advertisements and
interviews conducted in the presence of an official nominee from the District Basic Education Officer
(DIOS/BSA). Despite working continuously, the petitioners were not paid salaries from the State exchequer
after the school received grant-in-aid status on 01.12.2006. They approached the High Court in 2013, which
directed the District Basic Education Officer to decide on their approval. On 26.04.2014, the District Basic
Education Officer rejected the approval of their appointments, asserting that:
- No prior approval was taken before issuing appointment letters.
- The selection process violated Section 12 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, and Rule 9 of the 1978
Rules.

B. In the present case, the provision of Section 12 of the Act of 1972 is not applicable to the
selection and appointment of the petitioners. Rule 9 prescribes for selection on the post of
Assistant Teacher. The provision contained u/Rule 9 was duly followed by the Committee of
Management while making selection and appointment. As per Rule 9, nominee of District Basic
Education Officer was also appointed, who participated in the selection proceeding initiated by the Committee
of Management and papers in this regard to the selection were submitted before the District Basic Education
Officer for grant of approval, which has not been accorded since long and ultimately, in pursuance to the
order passed by this Court, claim setup by the petitioners has been rejected on total misconceived and
erroneous grounds. (Para 19)

C. In case selection has not been disapproved on the ground of non appearance of nominee of
the District Basic Education Officer, therefore, the impugned order appears to be not justified.
The selection of the petitioners is held not to be vitiated in law. Appointment made under Rules,
1978. Papers in this regard were submitted before the District Basic Education Officer and almost and till the
passing of the impugned order, no order was passed and reminder was also sent on the matter submitted by
the Committee of Management, thus, in view of Rule 10, due to non passing of the order within a
period of one month, selection of the petitioners was deemed to have been approved. (Para 20)

D. Under the Regulation 101 to 109, there is a deeming provision in case of non passing of order
within a week. The Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Pandey (infra) has held that in case no order has
been passed within a week from the date of receipt of papers, the appointment is deemed to be
approved and direction was issued for the payment of salary from the date it was deemed to be
approved. (Para 22)

The claim setup by the petitioners is just and valid and under deeming clause u/Rule 10 of Rules, 1978, the
appointment of the petitioners is deemed to be approved from the date of approval, thus, the petitioners are
entitled to get salary from the State Exchequer. (Para 24)

The impugned order dated 26.4.2014 quashed. The respondents are directed to ensure payment of salary to
the petitioners w.e.f. the date of deemed approval from the date the institution is brought within the purview
of payment of Salaries Act. (Para 25, 26)

Writ petition allowed.

Case Law Cited:
Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2019 (5) ADJ 1583 (Para 12)
Pramod Kumar Pandey Vs. District Inspector of Schools, 2019 (11) ADJ 127 (DB) (Para 12)

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978; Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other
Employees) Act, 1978.
1836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
service, teachers, appointment, rules, regulation, deemed, approval, salary, payment, management, selection,
basic education.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Shashank Shekhar Parihar, Meenakshi Singh
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Abhinav Singh, Ankit Srivastava, Jyoti Sikka, Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Rajive
Singh Chauhan

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Divesh Mishra, learned
Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent
No.7.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated
26.4.2014, passed by the respondent No.4 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby approval to
the appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that no prior approval was taken
before issuing the appointment letter as well as there is another objection that provisions of Section
12 and Rule 9 were not followed while making selection on the post of Assistant Teacher.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that Janta Junior High School, Patari, Post Patari, District
Unnao is a recognized institution by the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The institution was earlier
unaided. With effect from 1.12.2006, vide government order dated 6.12.2006, the institution was
brought within the purview of Payment of Salaries Act by the State Government. The provision
under Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions
of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 and Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of
Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 are applicable to the said institution.

4. In the said institution, there were nine posts of Assistant Teachers duly sanctioned and at
the time of appointment of the petitioner, three posts were lying vacant. To fill up three vacancies,
an advertisement was issued in the daily newspaper Unnao Times and Dainik Vratant on 3.7.1997.
On a letter of the Committee of Management, the District Basic Education Officer passed an order
nominating Sri Mahadeo Prasad Pandey, Lecturer, D.I.E.T., Unnao to participate as a Nominee in
the selection proceeding.

5. The petitioner No.1 applied and she was interviewed by the selection committee in
which Nominee of the District Basic Education Officer also participated. On 26.7.1997 itself, an
appointment order was issued to the petitioner No.1 appointing her on the post of Assistant Teacher
in response to the appointment order dated 26.7.1997. The petitioner No.1 joined the post of
Assistant Teacher on 1.8.1997 and since then, she is continuously working on her post. On
7.8.1997, a letter was sent by the Manager to the District Basic Education Officer, seeking approval
to the appointment of the petitioner No.1 and vide order dated 30.9.1998, the service of the
petitioner No.1 was confirmed.
4 All. Smt. Rekha Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1837
6. The petitioner No.2 has been appointed on the basis of an advertisement issued in
newspapers Unnao Times and Dainik Vratant dated 5.7.2002 and the District Basic Education
Officer passed an order nominating Sri Daya Ram Dwivedi, Principal, D.I.E.T., Unnao to
participate in the selection proceeding. The petitioner No.2 applied and he was interviewed on
26.7.2002 by the selection committee, in which, the nominee of the District Basic Education
Officer had participated. On 26.7.2002, the appointment order was issued to the petitioner No.2,
appointing him on the post of Assistant Teacher and in response to the appointment order dated
26.7.2002, the petitioner No.2 joined the post on 1.8.2002 on the post and since then, he is
continuously working on the post and the service of the petitioner No.2 was confirmed vide order
dated 20.8.2003.

7. Similarly, the petitioner No.3 has been appointed on the basis of an advertisement issued
in newspapers Unnao Times and Dainik Vratant and the District Basic Education Officer appointed
Sri Daya Ram Dwivedi, Principal, D.I.E.T., Unnao as nominee to participate in the selection. The
petitioner No.3 has been selected in the presence of nominee appointed by the District Basic
Education Officer. Thereafter, appointment letter was issued to petitioner No.3 appointing her on
the post of Assistant Teacher and in response to the appointment letter, she joined on the post of
Assistant Teacher on 13.7.2006 and since then, she is continuously discharging her duties. Vide
order dated 28.9.2007, passed by the Manager of the School, the service of petitioner No.3 was
confirmed.

8. In spite of the fact that the petitioners are continuously discharging their duties on the
respective posts, no salary was paid to them, therefore, they filed Writ Petition Nos.1423 (S/S) of
2013, 1424 (S/S) of 2013 and 1425 (S/S) of 2013 for issuance of direction to the respondents to
make payment of salary to the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 2.12.2006 and not
to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioners and further commanding respondent Nos.2
and 3 to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teachers.

9. Prior to taking the institution in grant in aid list, salary of the petitioners was made from
the own sources of the Committee of Management and the institution was taken on the grant in aid
list w.e.f. 1.12.2006 and thereafter, they were entitled to get salary from the State Exchequer, which
has not been disbursed till date. The writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated
30.5.2013, directing the District Basic Education Officer to take decision in regard to the grant of
approval on the appointment of the petitioners.

10. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, an order was passed by the District
Basic Education Officer dated 26.4.2014, whereby the claim setup by the petitioners vide
representation to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioners was rejected, which is
impugned in the writ petition. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that without
approval of the District Basic Education Officer, no appointment can be made on the post of
Assistant Teacher as well as provisions of Section 12 and Rule 9 were not followed in making
selection on the post of Assistant Teacher.

11. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Section 12 has no application
to the selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Junior Basic School,
1838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, objection in this regard is wholly misconceived and erroneous in nature. He submits that
papers in regard to the appointment of the petitioners were submitted on 18.6.1997, 15.6.2002 and
20.5.2006 on the papers submitted, the District Basic Education Officer did not pass any order as
per the provision contained under Rule 9 of Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, therefore, the
appointment of the petitioners have been deemed approved in view of provision contained under
Rule 10 (3) (iii), wherein it has been provided that in case after submission of papers, no approval
is granted to the selection and appointment of the petitioners it will be deemed to be approved by
operation of law, therefore, the petitioners are claiming salary w.e.f. the date of deemed approval in
view of provision contained under Rule 10 (3) (iii) of the Rules of 1978.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the District Basic Education
Officer without considering the relevant records produced before him appointing nominee by the
District Basic Education Officer, advertisements were issued in two daily newspapers inasmuch as
following the procedure prescribed under law, appointment of the petitioners has been made and
without considering the same, the impugned order dated 26.4.2014 has been passed. Next
submission is that the provision of Rule 10 (3) (iii) has also not been taken notice while passing the
impugned order, therefore, the impugned order suffers from apparent illegality and is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of the submissions advanced, he placed reliance upon the
following judgments :-

 (i) Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. [2019 (5) ADJ 1583]

 (ii) Pramod Kumar Pandey Vs. District Inspector of Schools [2019 (11) ADJ 127
(DB)]

13. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the advertisement was issued
in local newspapers published in District Unnao, therefore, no candidates from the other districts
could know in regard to the advertisement and could not apply for the same. Next submission is
that the provisions of Section 12 and Rule 9 were not followed while making appointment on the
post of Assistant Teacher in the institution in question. Last submission is that the order dated
26.4.2014 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is a just and valid order.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 submits that advertisement in the two local
newspapers was made and in pursuance thereof, candidates applied for and were considered by the
selection committee and recommendation for making appointment by the selection committee was
made of the petitioners. It is submitted that prior to make selection, request was made to the District
Basic Education Officer to appoint nominee in the selection proceeding and in pursuance thereof,
nominee was appointed who was present at the time of selection, therefore, the selection does not
vitiate in law and is a just and valid selection. Next submission is that in view of provision
contained under Rule 10 of the 1978 Rules, the appointment of the petitioners has been deemed
approved, therefore, they are entitled to get salary from the State Exchequer.
4 All. Smt. Rekha Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1839
15. Next submission of counsel for respondent No.7 is that the procedure prescribed under
Rule 9 was duly followed in making selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher
and there is no infirmity or illegality in the selection.

16. After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I
perused perused the material on record.

17. For deciding controversy involved, Section 12 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 is
being quoted below :-

 "12. Control over Basic Schools. - (1) The Director may, from time to time, inspect or
cause to be inspected any basic school 1 [* * *] and also the records and proceedings of the local
body concerning or connected with discharge of the functions of the local body in respect of basic
education.

 [(2) The Director may direct the management of a basic school to remove any defect or
deficiency found on inspection or otherwise.

 (3) If the management of a basic school fails to comply with any direction made under
sub-section (2), the Director may, after considering the explanation or representation, if any, given
or made by the management, refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such
school.

 (4) On receipt of a recommendation under sub-section (3) in respect of any basic school,
the Board may withdraw the recognition of that school.]"

18. It is also relevant to take notice of the Rule 9 of Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic
Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978,
which is being quoted below :-

 "9. Selection Committee ? The Management of minority Institutions and unaided Junior
High Schools shall constitute a selection committee:

 (i) For the post of headmaster :

 (1) Manager;

 (2) Two nominee of the Management;

 (ii) For the post of Assistant Teacher;

 (1) Manager;

 (2) Headmaster of the recognised school in which the appointment is to be made;
1840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (3) a nominee of the Management"

19. On perusal of the aforesaid Rules and Section, it is apparent that in the present case, the
provision of Section 12 of the Act of 1972 is not applicable to the selection and appointment of the
petitioners. Rule 9 prescribes for selection on the post of Assistant Teacher. The provision
contained under Rule 9 was duly followed by the Committee of Management while making
selection and appointment. Advertisement in two daily newspapers was issued inviting applications
from the eligible and qualified candidates and it is not disputed that the advertisement was not
made in two daily newspapers, inviting applications. As per Rule 9, nominee of District Basic
Education Officer was also appointed, who participated in the selection proceeding initiated by the
Committee of Management and papers in this regard to the selection were submitted before the
District Basic Education Officer for grant of approval, which has not been accorded since long and
ultimately, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, claim setup by the petitioners has been
rejected on total misconceived and erroneous grounds.

20. In regard to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that
appointment made under Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, papers in this regard were
submitted before the District Basic Education Officer and almost and till the passing of the
impugned order, no order was passed and reminder was also sent on the matter submitted by the
Committee of Management, thus, in view of Rule 10, due to non passing of the order within a
period of one month, selection of the petitioners was deemed to have been approved. In case
selection has not been disapproved on the ground of non appearance of nominee of the District
Basic Education Officer, therefore, the impugned order appears to be not justified. The selection of
the petitioners is held not to be vitiated in law.

21. Relevant paragraphs 17 to 36 in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh (Supra) are being
quoted as under :-

 "(17) Having heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I
perused the material on record as well as the law report relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners.

 (18) In regard to first submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that due to
non passing of the order on papers submitted for grant of approval to the selection of the Principal,
Assistant Teachers and Clerk within a period of one month, it is deemed that the approval has been
accorded. In this regard, on the basis of material, it is well established that after making selection,
the papers were submitted before the District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 24.06.2015
for grant of approval, however, the District Basic Education Officer did not pass any order for a
long spell of time. In this regard, Rule 10 of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 is quoted below:

 "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
4 All. Smt. Rekha Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1841
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.

 (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."

 (19) On perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is evident on the face of it that in case the order
of approval or refusal to grant approval is not passed within the period of one month from the date
of submission of papers of selection proceeding, then it is deemed to be approved on expiry of one
month.

 (20) In the present case, the papers were submitted on 24.06.2015 and for almost six
months, the District Basic Education Officer kept mum. Therefore, in view of the provisions
contained under Rule 10 of the 1978 Rules, due to non passing of the order within a period of one
month, the selection of the petitioners were deemed to have been approved. In view of the above,
due to non consideration of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the impugned orders vitiate in law
and are liable to be set aside.

 (21) In regard to second submission of learned Senior Advocate, this Court found that the
order impugned is not very specific. It does not record detailed reason that which of the provisions
1842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Act and Rules governing the selection proceeding on the post of Assistant Teacher up to the
level of Junior High School has been vitiated in making the selection of the petitioners.

 (22) On perusal of the impugned order, the only reason has been assigned that in regard
to appointment on the post of Clerk, one Saurabh Singh was recommended for appointment on the
post of Clerk under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The Committee of Management while making
selection has not been considered that the candidate who belongs under Dying in Harness Rules
against the post of Clerk, is entitled to get appointment. In this regard, on perusal of the record, it
is found that the recommendation of Saurabh Singh on the post of Clerk was met prior to initiation
of the selection proceeding or after the submission of papers regarding approval of selection. In
absence of clear cut finding in this regard, the impugned order renders unsustainable in law.

 (23) The District Basic Education Officer, while rejecting to grant approval, had not
recorded finding that which provisions of the Act and Rules have been violated while making
selection on the post of Headmaster, Assistant Teacher and on clerk, thus the reason being not
specific suffers from illegality.

 (24) On overall consideration of the respective arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, it is crystal clear that the main issue in rejecting the approval is that the
nominee of the District Basic Education Officer was not present in the Selection Committee and in
his absence, the Selection Committee was permitted to conclude the selection proceeding. It is
recorded that in case one Member of the Selection Committee is absent and the decision has been
taken by majority of Members including the Chairman of the Selection Committee in making
selection, the same does not vitiate the selection made in absence of nominee of the District Basic
Education Officer. Upon bare perusal of the judgment relied upon and after examination of the law
laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of District Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Ambedkar Nagar (supra) and Fateh Bahadur Singh (Supra), this Court holds that issue involved in
the aforesaid judgments was in regard to the appointment on the post of Clerk, wherein in the
selection proceedings nominee of the District Basic Education Officer did not participate. The
learned Single Judge on the basis of material placed on record found that the District Basic
Education Officer to send the nominee on the letter submitted by the Manager/ Principal of the
Institution, did not respond and in consequence thereto, the Selection Committee comprising of
Manager and Headmaster met and made recommendation for the appointment and thereafter, the
selection was made in absence of nominee of the District Basic Education Officer. Thus, in the
present case, in case the same has been disapproved on the ground of non-appearance of nominee
of the District Basic Education Officer, the impugned order appears to be not justifiable in law.

 (25) The counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties denying the allegations made in
the writ petitions and specifically stating therein that since the rules governing the service
conditions of the petitioners prescribes that representative of the District Basic Education Officer
shall participate in the selection, who was not present, therefore, the entire selection vitiates in law.

 (26) In the rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegations
made in the counter affidavit have been denied.
4 All. Smt. Rekha Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1843
 (27) The learned Single Judge held that it is the District Basic Education Officer, who
himself failed to send the nominee to participate in the selection proceeding. Therefore, the
selection cannot be faulted on the alleged ground. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was
assailed in the Special Appeal (D) No.92 of 2016 (Supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court
declined to interfere by holding as under:

 "We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment particularly for the
reason that the District Basic Education Officer had himself failed to send the nominee who
otherwise would have participated in the selection proceedings. In our considered opinion, the
selection can not be faulted on the alleged ground that the selection committee comprising of two
members could not hold the selection, as such, the impugned judgment does not call for any
interference."

 (28) In the another judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in
the case of Fateh Bahadur Singh (Supra), the proceeding was initiated to make selection on the
post of Clerk under the first statute of Kanpur University, Statute No.21-03(6)(b). On submission of
papers, the proposal of the Selection Committee was disapproved on the ground that neither the
District Inspector of Schools nor the District Employment Officer participated in the selection.
Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted below:

 "9. It transpires from the record that the selection had been disapproved only on the
ground that the DIOS himself had not participated and the District Employment Officer nor his
representative had participated in the selection. The said ground is not available to the Regional
Higher Education Officer for disapproving the selection for the reason that the DIOS had written
by means of letter dated 11.6.1991 that whenever he is out of Head Quarter his functions are to be
discharged by the Finance and Accounts Officer. So as a practice, since on the date of selection the
DIOS was out of Head Quarter, therefore, he authorized the Finance and Accounts officer to
participate in the selection. The non-participation of the DIOS under some compelling
circumstances or under some misconception will not vitiate the selection when there was
representation, in the capacity of DIOS, of District Finance and Accounts Officer, in his absence in
the Head Quarter as practice prevalent in the DIOS office. The District Employment Officer was
firmly of the view that since the intimation of the vacancy was not made 15 days prior to the
selection to him, therefore, he will not participate in the selection. This reasoning of the District
Employment Officer does not appeal to reason and the District Employment Officer could have
participated in the selection putting his dissent in the selection, but instead of doing so, he opted to
remain away from the selection with the understanding that he was only member of the Selection
Committee.

 10. The validity of the selection proceedings, if at all were vitiated for want of quorum,
although not provided by the rules, regulations or by the Statutes would be valid or not, has not
been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been held that if no quorum has been
provided then merely because one of the representatives of the members has not participated in the
selection, could not vitiate the selection proceedings.
1844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1972 SC page 1812, Ishwar Chandra v. Stayanarain Sinha and
others, in which it has been held that if majority of the members are present in the selection and
any quorum has not been provided then the selection would be valid and cannot be vitiated on this
count. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted below:

 "If for one reason or the other one of them could not attend, that does not make the
meeting of others illegal. In such circumstances, where there is no rule or regulation or any other
provision for fixing the quorum, the presence of the majority of the members would constitute it a
valid meeting and matters considered thereat cannot be held to be invalid."

 12. In the wake of the observation made in the case of Ishwar Chandra (supra), the
disapproval order cannot be sustained. The reasoning given by the Regional Higher Education
Officer is not valid in the eye of law, as the selection cannot be vitiated on account of the fact that
the District Employment Officer refused to participate in the selection. The petitioner is already in
employment and is also working and once the appointment was being made on the basis of open
advertisement, the reasoning of the District Employment Officer was not valid for intimating the
vacancy. The intimation of vacancy is not contemplated under the Kanpur University Statutes and
as such the requirement of giving intimation to the District Employment Officer was not valid and
legal in the eye of law. The petitioner is already in employment and is working and she shall
continue to work."

 (29) In view of the law report relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners,
there is no hesitation to hold that the decision taken by the majority in the Selection Committee, the
selections of the petitioners do not vitiate in law.

 (30) In view of the above legal position, this Court is of the opinion that impugned orders
dated 02.02.2016 and 24.02.2016, contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition are illegal and
are liable to be set aside.

 (31) In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed.

 (32) Accordingly, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned
orders dated 02.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

 (33) The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in the light of observations made
above and law reports relied upon within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.

 (34) The similar orders have been challenged in the connected writ petitions i.e. Writ
Petition No.9201 (SS) of 2016 titled 'Ravi Kiran Singh v. State of U.P. and others' and Writ Petition
No.29282 (SS) of 2016 titled 'Shiv Prakash v. State of U.P. and others and the same grounds and
facts have been mentioned in the writ petitions pertaining to the selection of Assistant Teacher in
the same Institution, thus the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 as contained in
4 All. Smt. Rekha Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1845
Annexure no.1 is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed in the same terms with the same
direction.

 (35) In Writ Petition No.7832 (SS) of 2016 titled 'Jaideep Kumar Singh v. State of
U.P. and others', the matter pertains to the selection on the post of Headmaster, wherein the
same date orders have been challenged by the petitioner on same facts and on same grounds.

 (36) In view of the above, the order in regard to the post of Headmaster passed on the
same date i.e. 2.2.2016 is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. The writ petition
succeeds and is allowed in the same terms with the same directions."

22. Similarly, under the Regulation 101 to 109, there is a deeming provision in case of
non passing of order within a week. The Court entertained the writ petition in the case of
Pramod Kumar Pandey (Supra) has considered the provision of deeming clause and came to
the conclusion that in case no order has been passed within a week from the date of receipt of
papers, the appointment is deemed to be approved and direction was issued for the payment of
salary from the date it was deemed to be approved. Relevant paragraph 17 is being quoted as
under :-

 "17. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the papers relating to selection and
appointments of the appellant-petitioners were sent to DIOS by the Management on 17.10.1997
for his grant of approval after having issued letters of appointment to the appellant-petitioners.
It is also not in dispute that the DIOS did not bestow his consideration on these papers within
statutory specified period of seven days. As such the appointment of appellant-petitioners stood
approved by deemed fiction of law and in view of the law settled by this court in above
authoritative pronouncements (Lalit Mohan Misra and Another (supra), and Abhay Pal Singh
(supra)]."

23. In view of the reasons assigned above, the argument advanced by learned Standing
Counsel appears to be not justifiable in law, therefore, it is rejected.

24. The claim setup by the petitioners is just and valid and under deeming clause under
Rule 10 of Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, the appointment of the petitioners is deemed
to be approved from the date of approval, thus, the petitioners are entitled to get salary from
the State Exchequer.

25. In view of the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 26.4.2014 is
hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

26. The respondents are directed to ensure payment of salary to the petitioners w.e.f.
the date of deemed approval from the date the institution is brought within the purview of
payment of Salaries Act within a period of two months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.
----------
1846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 1846
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ A No. 6861 of 2024

Sameer Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
Whether a private bus owner, who has a transport agreement with a third party (the factory/guardians) rather
than directly with the school authorities, is legally entitled to a school transport carriage permit u/Rule 222-B
of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998?

Headnotes
A. Motor Vehicles Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 74; U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998:
Rule 222-A, 222-B and 222-L - The petitioner, Sameer Agarwal, owns a bus operating under an "All U.P.
Contract Carriage Permit." He entered into a private agreement with a factory, Avadh Sugar and Energy Ltd.,
to transport the children of the factory's employees to the ONGC Community School in District Sitapur. The
petitioner approached the Court aggrieved by the inaction of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) in
refusing to grant him a specific contract carriage permit for carrying school children u/s 74 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Court rejected the argument that the rules were silently ambiguous. A literal reading of Rule
222-B(2) explicitly mandates that a private bus owner must have a 'written agreement with the
school authority' to apply for the permit.
Section 74 of Act, 1988 that allows for the grant of contract carriage permit, specifically states that the
Regional Transport Authority shall grant a contract carriage permit subject to any Rules that may be made
under the Act. Rules are unambiguous and a facial reading brings us to fore that these Rules allow such
permits only to private buses having an agreement with the school authorities as per Rule 222-B (2) of the
Rule, 1998. (Para 9, 10)
B.