# State Of U.P. & Ors v. Anurag Gupta & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1102
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-05
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 120 of 2021
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-anurag-gupta-anr-48425
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Service Law - The Court observed that the
respondent has given incorrect information
regarding possessing eligibility qualification in
the Writ Petition. As the petitioner did not
possess the eligibility qualification on the date of
his appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher, his appointment is illegal. The manager
himself stated on oath before the State
authorities that the petitioner was not included
amongst the teachers working as per the
standard. Therefore, it was held that the no
direction could be issued to include the
petitioner's name in the list of teachers of the
college for bringing it on Grant-in-aid list and to
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Anurag Gupta & Anr.
1103
pay his salary from the State Exchequer. (Para
36)
Special Appeal Allowed. (E-10)

## Text

1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
becomes the bounden duty of the courts to
advance the cause of the social justice.
While giving interpretation to a particular
provision, the court is supposed to bridge
the gap between the law and society.

9. 1970 1⁄431⁄2 ,l0 lh0 lh0 129 1⁄4dqyHkw"k.k
izfr jktdqekjh ,oa vU;1⁄2 esa ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd
Hkj.k iks"k.k jgu lgu dks /;ku esa j[kdj
fu/kkZfjr gksuk pkfg,A ;g Hkh dgk gS fd og ifr
ds vk; dk 25 izfr'kr gksuk pkfg,A

10. orZeku ekeys esa Hkh foi{kh la[;k 2 dh
izfrekg osru nks yk[k pkSchl gtkj :i;k gS vkSj
tks QySV ls fdjk;k izkIr dj jgk gS og Hkh
iPphl gtkj :i;k ls Åij gSA mDr vk/kkj ij
dqy nks yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;k dk 25 izfr'kr
lkB gtkj :i;k curk gSA ,d QySV mlus cgu
dks ns fn;k gS ml ij dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS vkSj
;g fd fuxjkuhdrkZ ,d mPp f'k{kk efgyk gS tks
,e0 Mh0 gS vkSj fdMuh dh ejht gS rFkk mldk
iq= tks 12 o"kZ dk gS ,oa fny dk ejht gS vkSj
vPNs fo|ky; ls f'k{kk izkIr dj jgk gSA lkFk gh
ifr ds vuq:i jgu lgu dks /;ku esa j[kk tk,
rks fuxjkuhdrkZ vkSj mldk iq= ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; ds mDr fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij 25 izfr'kr
Hkj.k iks"k.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA
fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 4615
o"kZ 2017] euh"k tSu izfr vadk{kk tSu] nkf.Md
vihy la[;k 125 o"kZ 2017] 'kSytk ,oa vU; izfr
[kwcckuk ,oa nkf.Md vihy la[;k 730 o"kZ 2020]
jtuh'k izfr usgk ,oa vU; esa nh x;h fof/k
O;oLFkk;s Hkh izLrqr dh x;h gSA

11. fuxjkuhdrkZ rFkk mlds iq= dh
ifjfLFkfr;ka] jgu lgu] mudh chekjh dk [kpZ]
iq= dh IifjfLFkfr;ka] jgu lgu] mudh chekjh
dk [kpZ] iq= dh i<kbZ] mldk bykt] Hkj.k iks"k.k
vkfn dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k
U;k;ky; }kjk okn la[;k 598 o"kZ 2015 esa
fu/kkZfjr dh x;h Hkj.k iks"k.k dh /kujkf'k dks
c<kuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gS ,oa foi{kh la[;k 2
dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og fuxjkuhdrkZ
la[;k 1 dks chl gtkj :i;k ds LFkku ij iSarhl
gtkj :i;k izfrekg ,oa fuxjkuhdrkZ la[;k 2
dks iUnzg gtkj :i;k ds LFkku ij iPphl gtkj
:i;k izfrekg dqy lkB gtkj :i;k izfrekg
Hkqxrku djsxkA c<h gqbZ /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku vkt
dh rkjh[k ls fd;k tk;sxk

12. orZeku fuxjkuh rnuqlkj v afre :i
l s fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA
----------
(2022)05ILR A1102
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED LUCKNOW 05.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 120 of 2021

State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Anurag Gupta & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants
Sri Atul Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashwani Kumar, Sri Rajendra Singh
Kushwaha

A. Service Law - The Court observed that the
respondent has given incorrect information
regarding possessing eligibility qualification in
the Writ Petition. As the petitioner did not
possess the eligibility qualification on the date of
his appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher, his appointment is illegal. The manager
himself stated on oath before the State
authorities that the petitioner was not included
amongst the teachers working as per the
standard. Therefore, it was held that the no
direction could be issued to include the
petitioner's name in the list of teachers of the
college for bringing it on Grant-in-aid list and to
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Anurag Gupta & Anr.
1103
pay his salary from the State Exchequer. (Para
36)
Special Appeal Allowed. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

Order On C. M. Application No.
44248 of 2021

1. Heard Shri Atul Kumar Yadav,
learned Standing Counsel for the appellants
and Shri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel
for the respondents and perused the record.

2. This application has been filed by
the State Appellant seeking Condonation of
delay of 54 days in filing the Special
Appeal. Having gone through the affidavit
filed in support of the Application, we find
that the cause shown for the delay in filing
the Special Appeal is sufficient and the
delay in filing the Appeal deserves to be
condoned.

3. Accordingly, the application for
condonation of delay is allowed and the
delay in filing the Special Appeal is
condoned.

Order On Special Appeal

1. Heard Shri Atul Kumar Yadav,
learned Standing Counsel for the appellants
and Shri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel
for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The instant Intra Court Appeal has
been filed by the State authorities against
the judgment and order dated 25-11-2020
passed by a learned Single Judge of this
Court allowing Writ Petition No. 31660
(S/S) of 2019, which was filed by the
respondent no. 1 challenging on order dated
06-09-2019 passed by the District Inspector
of Schools, Lakhimpur Kheri (who shall
hereinafter be referred to as "the D.I.O.S."),
rejecting the petitioner's representation to
include his name in the list of teachers of
the
college
for
taking
it on
State
Government's
Grant-in-aid
and
consequently pay him salary from the State
exchequer.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case
are that the respondent no. 1 had filed the
Writ Petition pleading that he holds the
qualifications
of
Bachelor
of
Arts
alongwith Intermediate Grade Drawing
Examination of Bombay and being fully
eligible for being appointed on the post of
Assistant Teacher (Art), he had applied
against a post of Assistant Teacher (Art)
advertised by Sri. Hanumant Intermediate
College, Lakhimpur-Kheri (the respondent
no. 2 in the Appeal, which shall hereinafter
be referred to as ''the college'). Vide order
dated 10-10-1999, the Manager of the
college had appointed the petitioner on the
aforesaid post on a temporary basis and the
petitioner joined his duties on 11-10-1999.
The petitioner has alleged that the Manager
of the college became annoyed with him
and did not allow him to perform his duties
for the period from 22-11-2000 till 14-072001 and being perturbed, humiliated and
victimized, coupled with mental tension
and depression, the petitioner fell seriously
ill and on 22-11-2000 itself, he gave an
application for grant of leave to the
Principal of the college. Although the
petitioner has alleged that he was required
to furnish a compromise that he will not
claim salary for the aforesaid period, the
document alleged to be a compromise is a
letter dated 14-07-2001 written by the
petitioner to the D.I.O.S. stating that he had
not performed teaching duties in the
college between the period 22-11-2000 to
14-07-2001 and, therefore, he will not
claim the salary and allowances etc. for the
1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid period. A copy of this letter was
endorsed to the Manager of the college
also. Thereafter the petitioner was allowed
to perform his duties with effect from 2107-2001.

4. The petitioner has stated that the
process for taking the college on the Grantin-aid list was started by the college in the
year 1998 and at that time, a list of the staff
working in the college was sent to the State
Government. As the petitioner was not
working at that time, his name was not
there in the list. As per the petitioner, in
August 2000 the manager of the college
had sent another list of members of staff to
the D.I.O.S., in which the petitioner's name
was there and also that on 16-01-2001, the
D.I.O.S. sought some information from the
college and the Manager was directed to
send the names of the staff members who
were working in the college at that time
and in the list sent by the Manager in
response to the said letter also, the
petitioners name was included. However,
the petitioner's name was not included in
the list of teachers sent by the Manager of
the college to the D.I.O.S. for taking the
college on Grant-in-aid list.

5. The petitioner has further stated
that by means of an order dated 23-02-2005
issued by the Government, the college was
taken on the Grant-in-aid list, without
including the petitioner's name as a teacher
of the college and the post of Principal and
one post of Assistant Teacher were shown
to be vacant and that on 05-04-2005, the
Manager of the college gave an application
to the Director, Education (Secondary)
stating that no post is vacant in the college
and on the post of Principal Sri. Krishna
Kant Verma was working and the petitioner
was working on the post of Assistant
Teacher with effect from 10-10-1999, i.e.
since before 01-01-2004, the date on which
the college was taken on Grant-in-aid list.

6. On 06-09-2019 the D.I.O.S. passed
an order disposing off the petitioner's
representation in furtherance of an order
dated 31-07-2019 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No. 3386 (S/S) of 2005. The
order dated 06-09-2019 states the college
was taken on Grant-in-aid list by means of
an order dated 23-02-2005, with effect
from 01-01-2004. The order dated 06-092019 further mentions that initially, the
college had applied in the year 1998 for
taking it on Grant-in-aid list, sending the
particulars of 01 Principal, 07 teachers, 01
clerk and 03 non-teaching staff; that at that
time, the petitioner was not working in the
college and, therefore, his name could not
be included in the list; that the petitioner
was appointed by the management on 1010-1999 and he worked in the college from
the period 11-10-1999 to 21-11-2000; that
at that time the college was unaided and the
petitioner left on 21-11-2000 without any
information and, therefore, his name was
again
not
there
in
the
list
of
Principal/teachers/non-teaching staff (total
18 persons) submitted by the college in the
year 2001 in response to information
sought by the department. The aforesaid
further mentions that on 14-07-2001, the
petitioner wrote a letter to the D.I.O.S.
stating that he had not performed teaching
duties in the college between the period 2211-2000 to 14-07-2001 and, therefore, he
will not claim the salary and allowances
etc. for the aforesaid period. It also states
that thereafter the petitioner was allowed to
perform his duties with effect from 21-072001, and that as per the Government's
directions, the Director of Secondary
Education provided the details of the posts
as per the information provided by the
college in the year 2000-2001, to the
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Anurag Gupta & Anr.
1105
Government through his letter dated 25-092004; that on 04-10-2004, the management
had submitted an undertaking and in
paragraph 3 thereof, it was categorically
stated that the petitioner and one Ram
Naresh have been appointed on the post of
Assistant Teachers in Art and Science
respectively and in case the aforesaid two
persons were not taken on Grant-in-aid list,
the college/management will bear their
expenses from its own sources. The
D.I.O.S. in this order dated 06-09-2019
recites that the list of staff members
submitted by the college for the first time
alongwith the application and the list
submitted in October 2001 was valid and
the list submitted afterwards including the
petitioner's name was not valid.

7. The order dated 06-09-2019 further
states that the college was taken on Grantin-aid list by means of a Government Order
dated 23-02-2005, with effect from 01-012004, without including the petitioner as a
teacher of the college, as his name was not
there in the original list; that on 05-042005, the Manager of the college wrote a
letter
to
the
Director
of
Education
(Secondary) stating that no post was vacant
in the college and requesting that the names
of Sri. Krishna Kant Verma and the
petitioner, who were not working at the
time of the application, be included by
making amendment in the original list. The
order dated 06-09-2019 also discloses that
thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition
No. 3386 (S/S) of 2005 and in furtherance
of the order dated 31-07-2019 passed in the
Writ Petition he submitted a representation
on 07-08-2019 and that after submitting the
representation, the petitioner submitted
copies
of
his
experience
certificate,
character certificate, letter issued by the
Board appointing him for evaluation of
answer-sheets of Board examinations along
with a letter dated 17-08-2019, but these
could not justify his claim for being
included in the list of staff members of the
college, as the petitioner was not working
in the college at the time when the
application for taking the college on the
Grant-in-aid list was submitted. The order
thus provided that in case the management
is taking work from the petitioner, it has to
pay his salary from its own resources.
Accordingly, the D.I.O.S. rejected the
petitioner's representation.

8. The D.I.O.S. filed a counter
affidavit in the Writ Petition before the
learned Single Judge stating that the
college is a recognized aided college up to
High School level and is recognized
unaided at the Intermediate level. It was
also averred in the counter affidavit that by
means of a letter dated 19-12-1985, the
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad had granted
recognition to the college for High School
Examination with effect from the year 1987
and in the year 1998, the management of
the college applied for taking the college on
grant-in-aid, indicating in the Management
Return list, names of the Principal, 07
teachers, 01 clerk and 03 class IV
employees, and that the petitioner's name
was not there in the said list. It was also
stated in the counter affidavit that the
petitioner was appointed on 10-10-1999
and he joined on 11-10-1999, that he
stopped attending to his duties with effect
from 21-11-2020 without any information
or any sanctioned leave, that thereafter, in
the Management Return submitted in the
year 2000-2001 furnished in response to
information sought in furtherance of the
application submitted in the year 1998 for
bringing the college on Grant-in-aid also,
the petitioner's name did not find place.
Respondents in the Writ Petition also
responded by stating that by means of a
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
letter dated 25-09-2004, the Director
Secondary
Education
forwarded
the
Management Return list to the State
Government alongwith the details as per
the information provided by the college in
the
year
2000-2001
and
the
State
Government
returned
the
matter
for
removal of certain short-comings and it
required the recommendations alongwith
the undertaking. A copy of the undertaking
furnished by the Manager of the college on
affidavit dated 04-10-2003 was annexed
alongwith the counter affidavit and it stated
that the following persons were working in
the college as per the standard: -

Sl. No. Name
Post
Date
since
working
1.
Vacant
Principa
l
---
2.
Sri.
Ram
Adhar Pandey
Asstt.
Teacher
01-071974
3.
Sri.
Krishna
Kant Verma
Asstt.
Teacher
01-071974
4.
Sri.
Suresh
Chandra
Verma
Asstt.
Teacher
12-091978
5.
Sri.
Radhey
Shyam
Rathore
Asstt.
Teacher
17-071981
6.
Sri.
Rama
Kant Tiwari
Asstt.
Teacher
31-071994
7.
Sri.
Maheep
Singh
Asstt.
Teacher
04-011999
8.
Sri.
Rajeev
Kumar
Asstt.
Teacher
10-101999
9.
Sri.
Vinod
Kumar Mishra
Clerk
01-081994
10.
Sri.
Hem Peon
07-07Chandra
1985
11.
Sri. Ramadhar Peon
01-071988
12.
Sri. Shaukeen Peon
01-061994
13.
Sri. Ved Ram
Peon
30-101997
14.
Sri. Rajneesh
Kumar
Peon
10-101999

9. The aforesaid undertaking given by
the manager of the college on affidavit
further stated that Sri. Ramadhar Pandey
mentioned at serial no. 2 of the list has
retired on 30-06-2003 on attaining the age
of superannuation and that the persons
mentioned in the aforesaid list have to be
taken on the Grant-in-aid list. It further
recites that two posts had fallen vacant due
to the death of Sri. Tej Ram Verma, the
Principal and retirement of Sri. Ramadhar
Pandey and in order to run the teaching
work properly, the petitioner Anurag Gupta
had been appointed as Assistant Teacher
(Art) and Sri. Ram Naresh had been
appointed as Assistant Teacher (Science).
The undertaking also mentions that in case
the aforesaid two teachers were not taken
on Grant-in-aid list, the college will bear
the expenses of their salary from its own
resources.

10. It was stated in the Counter
Affidavit that since the petitioner's name
was not there in the approved list,
therefore, his representation for including
his name in the list was rejected by means
of the order dated 06-09-2019.

11. The learned Single Judge allowed
the Writ Petition by means of the judgment
dated
24-11-2020
holding
that
the
petitioner's appointment since 1999 is not
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Anurag Gupta & Anr.
1107
disputed. Learned Single Judge further
records in the judgment under appeal that
the college had been brought on Grant-inaid list after submission of the documents
in the year 2004, in which the petitioner's
name was included; that the fact of the
petitioner having worked or not during the
period 02-11-2000 to 20-11-2001 has no
bearing on the merit of the case; that the
petitioner's name finds place in the affidavit
of the manager filed in the year 2004 -
which is the basis upon which the college
has been included in the grant-in-aid list, as
he had been appointed against a sanctioned
post which had fallen vacant on the demise
of the Principal and retirement of a teacher.
The learned Single Judge held that the
reason assigned by the D.I.O.S. for
excluding
the
petitioner's
name
was
unsustainable. Learned Single Judge has
expressed his opinion that the D.I.O.S.
could have dropped the name of a teacher
only if he found that the teacher had not
been duly and legally appointed in the year
2004. The learned Single Judge further held
that the undertaking given by the manager
in the affidavit dated 04-10-2004 would not
take away the petitioner's right to get salary
from the State exchequer.

12. Feeling aggrieved against the
aforesaid judgment and order dated 25-112020 passed by the learned Single Judge,
the State authorities have filed the instant
Intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII,
Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules
mainly on the Ground that only those
employees are entitled to receive salary
from the State Exchequer, whose names
were mentioned in the Government Order
dated 23-02-2005 whereby the college was
brought on Grant-in-aid list; that the
petitioner's name was not there and he has
not assailed the validity of the aforesaid
Government Order dated 23-02-2005 and
that the D.I.O.S. has no authority to make
payment of salary to any employee whose
name is not there in the Grant-in-aid list.

13. On the direction of the Court, the
learned Standing Counsel has produced the
original record of the office of the District
Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur Kheri as
also of the State Government and we have
perused the same.

14. We find that on 11-02-1998, a
Government
Order
was
issued
in
supersession of the earlier Government
Orders on the subject, for taking recognized
non-Government Higher Secondary Schools
on the Grant-in-aid list on the terms and
conditions mentioned in the Government
Order. One of the conditions mentioned in
the Government Order is that the college
should give an application on the format
given in the Government Order. The format
of the application requires the details of the
staff working in the college to be furnished.
Accordingly, the college submitted an
application on 19-09-1998 and the a list of
teachers and non-teaching staff of the college
was provided alongwith the application, and
the petitioner's name was not there in this list
of teachers and the members of non-teaching
staff of the college.

15. After initiation of the process for
taking the college on the Grant-in-aid list,
on 12-09-1999 the college issued an
advertisement inviting applications for
appointment on three posts of Assistant
Teachers - one each in Art, Science and
P.T.
On
10-10-1999,
the
manager
appointed the petitioner in furtherance of
the
aforesaid
advertisement
and
the
petitioner joined on 11-10-1999.

16. On 28-02-1990, a Government
Order was issued whereby it was provided
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the teachers to be appointed in L.T. /
Lecturer Grade for the subjects Art, P.T.,
Language, Home Science, Craft, Music,
Triple languages, Painting, Typing and
Short-hand must possess the eligibility
qualification in the subject concerned and
Graduate/Post
Graduate
degree
respectively. Although the petitioner is said
to have been appointed on 10-10-1999, the
record reveals that he acquired the
eligibility qualification of Intermediate
with Technical Art (Drawing Technical)
from U. P. Intermediate Education Board
as a private candidate on 12-07-2000, from
the college in which he claims to be have
been teaching since 11-10-1999. Strangely,
although the petitioner's marks-sheet of
Intermediate bears the date 12-07-2000, a
certificate of having passed Intermediate in
drawing has been issued to him on 24-062000, i.e., prior to issuance of the marks
sheet. The petitioner passed B.A. Part III
examination from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji
Maharaj University, Kanpur on 23-07-2000
as a private candidate.

17. The record further reveals that on
27-07-2000, the D.I.O.S. wrote a letter to the
Manager of the college, asking him to submit
a proposal to bring the college on Grant-inaid list. In response to the aforesaid letter, the
Manager of the college sent a letter dated 0708-2000, furnishing the requisite information
and this time, the following list of 18 persons
was sent, which too did not contain the name
of the petitioner: -

Sl. No. Name
Post
Date since
working
1.
Tej Ram
Verma
Principal
20.09.1980
2.
Sri.
Ram
Adhar
Asstt.
Teacher
01-071974
Pandey
3.
Sri.
Krishna
Kant
Verma
Asstt.
Teacher
01-071974
4.
Sri.
Suresh
Chandra
Verma
Asstt.
Teacher
12-091978
5.
Sri.
Radhey
Shyam
Rathore
Asstt.
Teacher
17-071981
6.
Sri.
Rama
Kant
Tiwari
Asstt.
Teacher
31-071994
7.
Sri.
Maheep
Singh
Asstt.
Teacher
04-011999
8.
Sri.
Rajeev
Kumar
Asstt.
Teacher
10-101999
9.
Sri.
Vinod
Kumar
Mishra
Clerk
01-081994
10.
Sri.
Hem
Chandra
Peon
07-071985
11.
Sri.
Ramadh
ar
Peon
01-071988
12.
Sri.
Shaukee
n
Peon
01-061994
13.
Sri. Ved
Ram
Peon
30-101997
14.
Sri.
Peon
10-10-
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Anurag Gupta & Anr.
1109
Rajnees
h Kumar
1999
15.
Sri
Rajesh
Kumar
Peon
03-101999
16.
Sri
Janarda
n Singh
Peon
03-101999
17.
Sri
Arvind
Kumar
Peon
03-101999
18.
Sri
Sandeep
Kumar
Verma
Peon
03-101999

18. On 21-12-2000, the Assistant
Accounts Officer of the office of the
D.I.O.S. wrote a letter to the D.I.O.S.
stating that the number of member of staff
in the college in question exceeds the
standard strength and an enquiry in this
regard needs to be conducted as per the
Government Order.

19. On 11-01-2001, the D.I.O.S. sent
a letter to the Regional Joint Director of
Education, forwarding the papers of three
colleges, including the college in question,
for taking them on Grant-in-aid list and the
papers of the college in question contained
an undated list of staff members signed by
the Principal and the Manager of the
college, which was the same list of 18
persons, as was provided with the earlier
letter dated 07-08-2000 and which did not
contain the petitioner's name.

20. On 16-01-2001, the D.I.O.S.
wrote another letter to the manager of the
college requesting him to provide full
particulars of the teachers and employees,
the year of recognition, names of the
teachers and the employees, date of joining,
date of grant of approval and the name and
designation of the authority who had
granted the approval. Again, the college
provided the same list of 18 persons under
the joint signatures of the Principal and the
Manager of the college, which did not
contain the petitioner's name. On 24-042001, the D.I.O.S. forwarded the same list
to the Joint Director, Education.

21. Again, the college provided a list
of staff members prepared on 01-05-2001
under the joint signatures of the Principal
and the Manager, which again contained
the same information of 18 persons, as was
provided earlier with the letter dated 07-082000, which did not include the petitioner's
name. This information was forwarded by
the D.I.O.S. to the Joint Director Education
on 11-05-2001 and again on 18-07-2001.

22. The record further reveals that on
21-07-2001, the manager of the college
wrote a letter to the petitioner, stating that
in pursuance of the agreement dated 14-072001, he was being adjusted on the post of
Assistant Teacher (Art) and was given "reappointment" on the said post.

23. On 26-07-2001, the Joint Director
wrote a letter to the D.I.O.S. stating that
upon scrutiny of the papers submitted for
providing Grant-in-aid, the certificate of
renewal of the society and the documents
relating to the land and building of the
college were found wanting and he was
directed to remove the objections. Again,
on 30-07-2001 another letter was written
by the authority asking the details of
creation of posts and its approval. On 2008-2001,
the
D.I.O.S.
sent
a
reply
providing the copies of certificate of
renewal of the society, khatauni, valuation,
secured fund, affidavit and undertaking and
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
it stated that permission has been granted to
run Class 9 but no documents were
available regarding creation of the posts.

24. We gather from the record that
although there is no letter no. 4989/2001-02
dated 06-10-2001 of the D.I.O.S. available
on the original record and no such letter has
been brought on record of the Writ Petition
by any of the parties, on 20-10-2001 the
Manager of the college gave a letter to the
D.I.O.S. stating that in furtherance of the
letter no. 4989/2001-02 dated 06-10-2001,
he was submitting a list of the teachers /
non-teaching staff of the college and the list
was provided with this letter, which
contained the petitioner's name for the first
time.

Sl.
No.
Name
Post
Date since
working
1.
Sri.
Ram
Adhar
Pandey
Principal 01-071974
2.
Sri. Krishna
Kant Verma
Asstt.
Teacher
01-071974
3.
Sri.
Suresh
Chandra
Verma
Asstt.
Teacher
12-091978
4.
Sri. Radhey
Shyam
Rathore
Asstt.
Teacher
17-071981
5.
Sri.
Rama
Kant Tiwari
Asstt.
Teacher
31-071994
6.
Sri. Maheep
Singh
Asstt.
Teacher
04-011999
7.
Sri.
Rajeev
Kumar
Asstt.
Teacher
10-101999
8.
Anurag
Gupta
Asstt.
Teacher

10.10.1999
9.
Sri.
Vinod
Kumar
Mishra
Clerk
01-081994
10.
Sri.
Hem
Chandra
Peon
07-071985
11.
Sri.
Ramadhar
Peon
01-071988
12.
Sri.
Shaukeen
Peon
01-061994
13.
Sri.
Ved
Ram
Peon
30-101997
14.
Sri.
Rajneesh
Kumar
Peon
10-101999
15. Sri
Rajesh
Kumar
Peon
03-101999
16. Sri Janardan
Singh
Peon
03-101999
17. Sri
Arvind
Kumar
Peon
03-101999
18.
Sri Sandeep
Kumar
Verma
Peon
03-101999

25. The manager of the college gave a
certificate stating that in case any teachers /
non-teaching employees will be found to be
in excess of the standard number of posts,
the management will pay their salary from
its own resources in case the college in
taken on the Grant-in-aid list and the
college will not make any demand of any
grant from the Government for this
purpose. On 31-05-2003 these papers were
forwarded by the D.I.O.S. to the Joint
Director Education.

26. On 17-07-2003, the Director of
Secondary Education, U.P. forwarded the
information
of
29
colleges
to
the
Government, and the information in regard
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Anurag Gupta & Anr.
1111
to the college in question contained the
names of teachers and other employees as
per the list of 14 persons provided by the
college earlier and it did not contain the
petitioner's name.

On
25-09-2004,
the
Deputy
Director wrote a letter to the D.I.O.S. with
a direction to obtain an undertaking from
the college on the basis of the information
provided in the year 2000-2001. On 04-102004, the manager of the college gave an
undertaking on an affidavit stating that the
following persons are working in the
college as per the standards: -

Sl.
No.
Name
Post
Date
since
working
1.
Vacant
Principal ---
2.
Sri.
Ram
Adhar Pandey
Asstt.
Teacher
01-071974
3.
Sri.
Krishna
Kant Verma
Asstt.
Teacher
01-071974
4.
Sri.
Suresh
Chandra
Verma
Asstt.
Teacher
12-091978
5.
Sri.
Radhey
Shyam
Rathore
Asstt.
Teacher
17-071981
6.
Sri.
Rama
Kant Tiwari
Asstt.
Teacher
31-071994
7.
Sri.
Maheep
Singh
Asstt.
Teacher
04-011999
8.
Sri.
Rajeev
Kumar
Asstt.
Teacher
10-101999
9.
Sri.
Vinod
Kumar Mishra
Clerk
01-081994
10.
Sri.
Hem
Chandra
Peon
07-071985
11.
Sri. Ramadhar Peon
01-071988
12.
Sri. Shaukeen Peon
01-061994
13.
Sri. Ved Ram Peon
30-101997
14.
Sri. Rajneesh
Kumar
Peon
10-101999

27. The undertaking on affidavit of
the manager further states that Sri.
Ramadhar Pandey mentioned at serial no. 2
of the list has retired on 30-06-2003 after
attaining the age of superannuation. The
persons mentioned in the aforesaid list have
to be taken on Grant-in-aid list. Two posts
have fallen vacant due to the death of Sri.
Tej Ram Verma, the Principal and
retirement of Sri. Ramadhar Pandey and in
order to run the teaching work properly, the
petitioner
Anurag
Gupta
has
been
appointed as Assistant Teacher (Art) and
Sri. Ram Naresh has been appointed as
Assistant Teacher (Science). In case the
aforesaid two teachers are not taken on
Grant-in-aid list, the college will bear the
expenses of their salary from its own
resources.

28. Accordingly, on 23-02-2005, a
Government Order was issued taking 09
colleges, on the grant-in-aid list, including
the college in question and the enclosed list
contains the names of in all 14 teachers and
other employees of the college mentioned
in the table given in para 26 above, which
does not include the petitioner's name.

29. When we analyse the submissions
made by learned counsel representing the
respective parties in the wake of the record,
we find that although the petitioner had
approached this Court by categorically
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pleading in the writ petition that he holds
the qualifications of "Bachelor of Arts
alongwith Intermediate Grade Drawing
Examination of Bombay" and being fully
eligible for being appointed on the post of
Assistant Teacher (Art), he was appointed
on 10-10-1999 but the record reveals that
he acquired the eligibility qualification of
Intermediate with Technical Art (Drawing
Technical)
from
U.
P.
Intermediate
Education Board as a private candidate on
12-07-2000, from the college in which he
claims to be teaching since 11-10-1999.
Strangely, although the petitioner's markssheet of Intermediate bears the date 12-072000, a certificate of having passed
Intermediate in drawing is said to have
been issued to him on 24-06-2000, i.e.,
prior to issuance of the marks-sheet. The
petitioner passed B.A. Part III examination
from
Chhatrapati
Shahu
Ji
Maharaj
University, Kanpur on 23-07-2000 as a
private candidate. Therefore, on the date of
his appointment, i.e. 10-10-1999, the
petitioner did not possess any of the
essential eligibility qualifications laid down
by the Government Order dated 28-021990 and he, thus, appears to have given
incorrect information regarding possessing
eligibility qualification in the Writ Petition.
As the petitioner did not possess the
eligibility qualification on the date of his
appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher (Art), his appointment was illegal.

30. The record further reveals that on
21-07-2001, the manager of the college had
"adjusted and re-appointed" the petitioner
on the post of Assistant Teacher (Art) in
pursuance of some agreement dated 14-072001. Although the petitioner possessed the
eligibility qualification on the said date, he
was given re-appointment in pursuance of
some agreement, without advertising the
post and without obtaining the requisite
sanction/approval
from
the
authority
concerned as required by law. Therefore,
his re-appointment made on 21-07-2001
was also not in accordance with the law.

31. Although the petitioner has
alleged that the Manager of the college
became annoyed with him and did not
allow him to perform his duties for the
period from 22-11-2000 till 14-07-2001
and being perturbed, humiliated and
victimized, coupled with mental tension
and depression, the petitioner fell seriously
ill, but at the same time he alleges that he
had given an application for grant of leave
to the Principal of the college and on 2211-2000 itself and he stopped attending the
college and, therefore, there was no
occasion for the manager to continue to
humiliate and victimize the petitioner after
22-11-2000
when
the
petitioner
had
stopped attending the college. Moreover,
no complaint to this effect is found to have
been made by the petitioner to any
authority and this allegation appears to
have been made for the first time in the
Writ Petition.

32. Although the petitioner has
alleged that he was required to furnish a
compromise that he will not claim salary
for the aforesaid period, the document
alleged to be a compromise is a letter dated
14-07-2001 written by the petitioner to the
D.I.O.S. stating that he had not performed
teaching duties in the college between the
period 22-11-2000 to 14-07-2001 and,
therefore, he will not claim the salary and
allowances etc. for the aforesaid period.

33. The petitioner's name was not
there in the original list of teachers and
other non-teaching staff provided by the
college on 19-09-1998, and again on 07-082000, and also in the undated lists provided
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Anurag Gupta & Anr.
1113
by the college which were forwarded
alongwith the letters dated 11-01-2001 and
24-04-2001 written by the D.I.O.S., and
also in the list dated 01-05-2001. His name
appeared for the first time in a list provided
by the Manager of the college alongwith a
letter dated 20-10-2001 written to the
D.I.O.S. purportedly in furtherance of some
letter no. 4989/2001-02 dated 06-10-2001
written by the latter, although there is no
such letter available on the original record
or on the record of the Writ Petition or the
Special Appeal. At the same time, the
manager of the college gave a certificate
that in case any teacher/non-teaching
employee will be found to be in excess of
the
standard
number
of
posts,
the
management will pay salary from its own
resources in case the college is taken on the
Grant-in-aid list and the college will not
make any demand from the Government
for any grant for this purpose.

34. On 04-10-2004, the manager of
the college gave an undertaking on an
affidavit stating that 14 persons named in
the
affidavit
(whose
particulars
are
mentioned in the table given in para 26
above) were working in the college as per
the standards, which 14 persons did not
include the petitioner, and further stating
that two posts had fallen vacant due to the
death of Sri. Tej Ram Verma, the Principal
and retirement of Sri. Ramadhar Pandey
and in order to run the teaching work
properly, the petitioner Anurag Gupta had
been appointed as Assistant Teacher (Art)
and Sri. Ram Naresh had been appointed as
Assistant Teacher (Science). In case the
aforesaid two teachers are not taken on
Grant-in-aid list, the college will bear the
expenses of their salary from its own
resources.

35. As per the aforesaid undertaking
on affidavit available on the record
produced by learned State Counsel, the
manager of the college himself admitted
that the petitioner was not amongst the
teachers of the college working as per the
standards.

36. Keeping in view all the aforesaid
facts, more particularly the fact that the
petitioner's
appointment/re-appointment
was not made in accordance with the law
and the manager of the college had himself
stated on oath before the State authorities
that the petitioner was not included
amongst the teachers working as per the
standard, we are of a considered opinion
that no direction could be issued to include
the petitioner's name in the list of teachers
of the college for bringing it on Grant-inaid list and to pay his salary from the State
Exchequer.

37. The facts disclosed and reasons
given above are self revealing and thus, we
are not in doubt that the appointment of the
petitioner (respondent No. 1 in this Special
Appeal) was not in accordance with law,
not only for want of approval by the
authority concerned, but also because at the
time of his alleged appointment he was not
fulfilling
the
essential
minimum
qualification for the post. The name of the
petitioner is said to have been sent to the
D.I.O.S. by the management pursuant to a
non-existent letter dated 06-10-2001 and,
as such, we also have no hesitation to hold
that such uncalled for information said to
have been submitted by the management of
the college cannot be the basis of inclusion
of his name amongst the teachers of the
college, who are entitled to receive salary
from the State exchequer on the college
having been brought on Grant-in-aid list.

38. In the aforesaid view, we do not
find ourselves in agreement with the
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment and order dated 25-11-2020
passed by the learned Single Judge, which
is under appeal. The Special Appeal is thus
allowed. The judgment and order dated 2511-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition No. 31660 (S/S) of 2019 is
hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is
dismissed.

39. However, there will be no order as
to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1114
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD 06.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 676 of 2015
with other connected cases

Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants
Sri Anil Tiwari (Senior Adv.), Sri Anand
Prakash Paul, Sri S.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Meenakshi Singh (State Law Officer),
Sri Ajit Kumar, Sri Krishna Mohan Garg, Sri
Manu Saxena, Sri Rishabh Srivastava, Sri
Mohit Kumar, Sri Nitin Kumar

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Code of Civil Procedural
Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 8, Order 6 Rule
17,
Order
7
Rule
11
-
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - Sections 3A,
3A(4), 3-B, 4, 6, 15, 25, 25(1) & 25(2) -
Appeals - arising out of dismissal of writ
petitions - in which petitioners are commonly
challenged the Election of office bearers,
approval of the list of working committee &
renewal of registration certificate of the Society
- no argument were addressed to concealment
of material facts as pointed out by writ court -
Supressio veri, expression faisi - Appellants are
not deserve to any relief from this Court, as
they are not only guilty of concealment of
material facts from Court but, also are indulged
in forum shopping as well as polluting the
stream of justice.(Para - 60, 63, 69)

Appeals are dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. ABCD Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2020) 2 SCC 52

2. Abhyudya Sanstha Vs U.O.I., (2011) 6 SCC
145

3. Amar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2011)7 SCC 69

4. Chandra Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma, (1995)
1 SCC 421

5. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114

6. Dhananjay Sharma Vs St. of Har. & ors.,
(1995) 3 SCC 757

7. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy Vs Govt. of Karn.,
(1991) 3 SCC 261

8. Hari Narain Vs Badri Das, AIR 1963 SC 1558

9. K.D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.
& ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481

10. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2013)2 SCC 398

11. Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu
& anr., (2013) 9 SCC 199

12. Pushpadevi M. Jatia Vs M.L. Wadhawan etc.,
(1987) 3 SCC 367

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh
Bindal, C. J.)

1. This order will dispose of a bunch
of 11 Special Appeals and one writ