# Sri Deo Narain Misra v. The Director of Education, Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 724
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3734 of 1985
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-deo-narain-misra-v-the-director-of-education-allahabad-and-others-40183
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226-U.P.
State
University
Act
1977-petitioner
appointed
clerk
in
Sanskrit
Maha
Vidyalaya prior to grant in add- Whether
petitioner entitled for payment from
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Sri Deo Narain Misra V. The Director of Education, Allahabad and others
725
Government fund? Held- appointment
not in accordance with the Act and the
rules-no
approval
of
concerning
authorities-Held not entitled for any
relief.

Held- Para 4

Learned counsel for the petitioner has
miserably failed to demonstrate that
while appointing the petitioner, the
procedure prescribed under the Statute
has
been
followed
and
that
the
appointment made by the committee of
management is ever approved by the
authorities, namely, Inspect of Sanskrit
Pathshala or the Deputy Director of
Education (Sanskrit), the authorities who
can perform the statutory function under
the Act.

## Text

724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
of the meeting by registered post to every
member of the Board at his place of
residence.
The
District
Magistrate
therefore must send notice of the meeting
to the President also by registered post at
his place of residence even though he may
not be an elected member. The motion of
no-confidence is directed against the
President he is the most affected party in
the matter. He is entitled to take part in
the debate at the meeting and to defend
himself. Thus, principles of natural justice
require that he should be given notice of
the meeting so that he may get an
opportunity of defending himself."

7. Here in the present case, it has not
been disputed by the petitioner that he had
knowledge of the proceedings and he
contested the proceedings. This aspect of
the matter has not placed before the
Division Bench relied by the counsel for
the petitioner.

8. In this view of the matter, in view
of the Full Bench referred to above, which
is binding on me and couple with the fact
that the decision of Division Bench relied
on by learned counsel for the petitioner
does not apply to the facts of the present
case. Therefore, this argument deserves to
be rejected.

9. The argument having failed, other
argument advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner assailing the findings of the
prescribed authority as well as of the
appellate authority also deserves to be
rejected. It is settled that the findings of
fact arrived at, are not to be easily
interfered with under Article 226 of the
Constitution,
unless
the
same
are
demonstrated to be perverse, or suffers
from manifest error of law. That having
not been shown, learned counsel lastly
argued that this Nazool property, which is
under the management of the local body
concerned and the local body would not
let out the same on a higher rent or
premium and petitioner who has also
submitted an application for allotment
may also be allowed to offer before this
Court and if this is the only criteria, his
case may also be considered. However, if
the respondents are inclined to let out or
lease out the property in question for rent,
the application of the petitioner may also
be considered in accordance with law.

10. In view of what has been stated
above, the writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3734 of 1985

Sri Deo Narain Misra

...Petitioner
Versus
The Director of Education, Allahabad and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Daya Shanker
Sri K.D. Tripathi
Sri B.B. Jauhari
Sri S.K. Mehrotra
Sri U.N. Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.S. Dwivedi
Sri R.S. Dwivedi
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226-U.P.
State
University
Act
1977-petitioner
appointed
clerk
in
Sanskrit
Maha
Vidyalaya prior to grant in add- Whether
petitioner entitled for payment from
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Sri Deo Narain Misra V. The Director of Education, Allahabad and others
725
Government fund? Held- appointment
not in accordance with the Act and the
rules-no
approval
of
concerning
authorities-Held not entitled for any
relief.

Held- Para 4

Learned counsel for the petitioner has
miserably failed to demonstrate that
while appointing the petitioner, the
procedure prescribed under the Statute
has
been
followed
and
that
the
appointment made by the committee of
management is ever approved by the
authorities, namely, Inspect of Sanskrit
Pathshala or the Deputy Director of
Education (Sanskrit), the authorities who
can perform the statutory function under
the Act.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner, who alleges
himself to be an employee, by means of
this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, has challenged the
order dated 13th March, 1985, (Annexure
'11' to the writ petition), passed by the
Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit),
U.P., Allahabad, the opposite part no.2,
and is further seeking a mandamus for
payment of salary from the State of U.P.
under
the
provisions
of
the
state
Universities Act with effect from 12th
April, 1982 to 31st March, 1985 and
continue to pay future salary till he
continues in service. The writ petition was
filed in the year 1985 and no interim order
was granted.

3. The case set up by the petitioner
in the writ petition is that the petitioner
was appointed as Clerk by the Managing
Committee in Sri Tulsi Smarak Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya, Rajapur, Banda on 1st
November, 1981 through its Manager and
he was working when the institution was
brought on the list of grants-in-aid and
was recognized. Therefore, the petitioner
is entitled for salary with effect from 12th
April, 1982. The order dated 12th April,
1982 is an order which is issued by the
State Government that there shall be one
post of Clerk in the institution which are
recognized by the Government under
Clause
(a)
and,
therefore,
any
appointment to such a post in accordance
with the U.P. State Universities Act as far
as it is applicable to the institution
governed by the U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973 and so far as it is applicable to
the Sanskrit Pathshala recognized and
governed by the statute framed under the
Act, shall be paid salary from the State
exchequer only when the procedure
prescribed under law is followed for
appointment and the appointment is
approved by the authorities concerned.
The aforesaid Government Order which
has been relied upon by the petitioner
clearly states that no payment shall be
made to any person who is appointed and
is working contrary to the aforesaid
Government Order dated 12th April,
1982. Annexure '2' to the writ petition
annexes documents wherein the Selection
Committee
purports
to
appoint
the
petitioner. The Selection Committee has
been
constituted
by
the
managing
committee of the college and this
appointment has no statutory force or
sanction on the basis whereof petitioner
can claim any statutory force or sanction
on the basis whereof petitioner can claim
any statutory right which can be enforced
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has miserably failed to demonstrate that
while appointing the petitioner, the
procedure prescribed under the Statute
has
been
followed
and
that
the
appointment made by the committee of
management is ever approved by the
authorities, namely, Inspect of Sanskrit
Pathshala or the Deputy Director of
Education (Sanskrit), the authorities who
can perform the statutory function under
the Act.

5. In this view of the matter and
particularly with regard to this assertion
that the petitioner though claims for the
payment of salary from the State of U.P.
but has not impleaded the State of U.P. as
one of the respondents in the writ petition,
the petitioner is not entitled for any relief
and the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.

6. In the result, the writ petition fails
and is hereby dismissed. The Interim
order, if any, stands vacated. There will
be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47316 of 2002

Ram Dulare Shukla

...Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam
Lucknow and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.C. Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Misra
Sri Sabhajeet Yadav
Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Regularisation & payment of SalaryEqual
pay
for
equal
work
Daily
Wage/Muster roll employees- working in
U.P. Jal Nigam as class IV employee for
10
year-Representation
for
regularization of service-Order by Chief
Engineer (Personal) for regularization
grant of minimum wages as given to
regular employees-Order not approved
by State Government Relying on apex
Court's decision in Putti Lal's case order
of Chief Engineer rescinded with out
affording
opportunity
of
hearing
to
petitioners-held, U.P. Jal Nigam framed
Schemes
duly
approved
by
State
Government for regularization of those
employees who had put five years of
service-Hence
Puttilal's
case
which
relates to regularization rules of State
Government, held, not applicable to daily
wages/muster roll employees of Jal
Nigam-directed
to
from
scheme
consistent
with
best
policy
for
regularization of those muster roll/daily
wages employees with five years or
more service in department-secondly,
daily wages/muster roll employees, held,
entitled to minimum of pay scale and
allowances as admissible to their regular
counterparts-
payment
was
made
bonafide, order granting minimum of pay
scale and dearness allowance-Hence no
recovery can be made-Impugned order
dated 22.8.2002 quashed-Equal pay for
equal work.
Cases referred:
(2002) UPCBEC 1595
(2001) 2 SCC 62
AIR 1991 SC 420
(1998) 9 SCC 595
SLP (Civil) 14326 of 2001
1979 ALJ 1184
JT 1995 (1) SC 24: 1979 ALJ 184 (DB)
1996 AWC 94

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. This petition and other connected
petitions have been filed for the relief of a
writ of mandamus commanding the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in