# Vijay Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 146
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-12
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 245 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-prakash-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54564
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Recognized
Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees)
Rules, 1984 - Rule 21 - Termination of
Service - Class-IV employee in recognized
Junior High School terminated without
prior written approval of District Basic
Education
Officer
(BSA),
violating
mandatory Rule 21. Termination order
(10.04.2014) issued day after suspension
(09.04.2014)
without
departmental
enquiry, rendering it illegal. BSA's order
(31.03.2017)
rejecting
salary
claim
unsustainable due to admitted lack of
prior approval. Single Judge's direction
(18.01.2024)
for
BSA
to
decide
on
4 All. Vijay Prakash Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
147
approval post-termination erroneous, as
prior approval is mandatory. Termination
order and BSA's order quashed; appellant
entitled to reinSt.ment. Employer granted
liberty to conduct enquiry within four
months
for
alleged
absence,
with
subsistence allowance during suspension.
Arrears and salary entitlement subject to
enquiry outcome and BSA approval under
Rule 21. (Paras 6-13)

Special Appeal Allowed.

## Text

146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
understanding, would indicate that in the
eventuality where a candidate prior to his
medical
examination
by
the
board
undergoes operation, and no scar is left
after such procedure is performed, the
candidate can be selected. Clause 25 cannot
be construed as giving an opportunity to the
candidate after his rejection on medical
ground to avail the remedy of operation
and, thereafter claim a right of fresh
consideration by the medical board. In the
event such contention is accepted, every
candidate who is found suffering with
small hydrocele will be conceded a right to
get himself operated and thereafter appear
afresh, for medical examination. That does
not appear to be the intent of the guidelines.

7. The limited issue which has to be
examined by the medical board is as to
whether on the date of medical examination
the candidate was medically fit or unfit.
Whether the candidate was accorded
consideration in terms of the policy/rules
for medical examination would be the
issue. It is only the correctness of such
opinion by the medical board which can be
examined in the review medical board.
Judicial review of such administrative
action would not involve recognition of a
right in a candidate to get himself operated
upon, even after he has been validly found
unfit on a particular medical exigency so as
to get himself operated and thereafter apply
for fresh consideration of his candidature.
The scope of judicial review in such
matters is otherwise extremely limited and
unless it is shown that the department has
acted arbitrarily or has violated the
guidelines made for conduct of medical
examination, this Court would not be
justified in interfering in such matters.

8. In view of the discussions and
deliberations held above, we find that the
learned
Single
Judge
has
correctly
examined the issue and the appellant
cannot assert a right under the applicable
policy to avail the remedy of medical
procedure after he is declared medically
unfit and seek fresh medical examination.

9. The special appeal lacks merit and
is, consequently, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 146
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2024

BEFORE

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

Special Appeal No. 245 of 2024

Vijay Prakash Verma ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Sri Prabhakar
Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kedar Nath Mishra

Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Recognized
Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees)
Rules, 1984 - Rule 21 - Termination of
Service - Class-IV employee in recognized
Junior High School terminated without
prior written approval of District Basic
Education
Officer
(BSA),
violating
mandatory Rule 21. Termination order
(10.04.2014) issued day after suspension
(09.04.2014)
without
departmental
enquiry, rendering it illegal. BSA's order
(31.03.2017)
rejecting
salary
claim
unsustainable due to admitted lack of
prior approval. Single Judge's direction
(18.01.2024)
for
BSA
to
decide
on
4 All. Vijay Prakash Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
147
approval post-termination erroneous, as
prior approval is mandatory. Termination
order and BSA's order quashed; appellant
entitled to reinSt.ment. Employer granted
liberty to conduct enquiry within four
months
for
alleged
absence,
with
subsistence allowance during suspension.
Arrears and salary entitlement subject to
enquiry outcome and BSA approval under
Rule 21. (Paras 6-13)

Special Appeal Allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.)

1. The special appeal arises out of an
order passed by the writ court on
18.1.2024 disposing of the appellant's
Writ-A No. 24667 of 2017. Services of
the
petitioner-appellant
have
been
terminated by the management and the
order was sent to District Basic Education
Officer for his approval. Learned Single
Judge has noticed that no decision has
been taken on decision of management
and this aspect is not even clarified in the
personal affidavit of the officer. A
direction has accordingly been issued to
the District Basic Education Officer to
take a decision regarding grant of
approval to the order of termination
within a period of two weeks.. In default,
the petitioner has been held entitled to
salary for the period he has actually
worked, subject to verification.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the statutory scheme has
been completely overlooked by the
learned Single Judge and facts have not
been examined in correct perspective.

3. It is undisputed that the appellant
was a Class-IV employee in the Mahajan
Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Salempur,
Deoria. This Institution is duly recognized
and the provisions of the Payment of
Salaries Act, 1978 are applicable upon it.
The services of the appellant were
approved and he was working. The
management apparently objected to the
working of the appellant and consequently
the appellant filed Writ A No. 7588 of
2016, which came to be disposed of on
19.2.2016 vide following order:-

"It is stated that petitioner is a
Class-IV
employee,
working
in
the
institution, but the Management for the
reasons unknown, is not permitting him to
incorporate signature in the attendance
register, and on such count, the salary of
petitioner alongwith two other employees
has been stopped since the year 2013. It is
contended that subsequently payment of
salary to other two persons has been
restored, but petitioner continues to be
victimized.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that Management of the
institution is acting in an arbitrary manner,
and the authorities are not examining the
petitioner's grievance.

Notices on behalf of respondent
nos.1 and 2 have been accepted by learned
Standing Counsel, whereas Sri S.K. Gupta
has
accepted
notices
on
behalf
of
respondent nos.3 and 4.

Considering the nature of order
proposed to be passed today, notices need
not be issued to the respondent no. 5, as it
would further delay the disposal of cause,
and the writ petition is being disposed of, at
this stage, itself.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances, as have been noticed above,
it would be appropriate to direct the
respondent no.4 to examine the grievance
of petitioner, noticed above, in accordance
with law, by means of a reasoned speaking
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order to be passed after affording an
opportunity of hearing in the matter to
respondent no.5, within a period of three
months from the date of presentation of a
certified
copy
of
this
order.
All
consequential
action
shall
be
taken,
accordingly.

With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of."

4.

The
appellant
accordingly
represented before the District Basic
Education Officer that he be allowed to
continue in the employment of the
Institution and be paid salary. Since, no
orders were passed by the District Basic
Education
Officer,
a
Contempt
Application (Civil) No. 6230 of 2016 was
field, in which further time was granted to
the District Basic Education Officer to
comply with the order of the Writ Court. It
is pursuant to this direction that the District
Basic Education Officer has passed the
order impugned in the writ filed before the
learned Single Judge. This order is dated
31.3.2017. In the discussion part of this
order it is recorded that the Block
Education Officer has submitted a report on
21.7.2014, as per which the appellant was
not attending to his duties and his
signatures were not available in the
attendance register. The Management also
informed that with effect from 1.7.2013 the
appellant was not working. The Committee
of Management thus placed the appellant
under suspension on 9.4.2014. It is then
recorded by the District Basic Education
Officer that on 10.4.2014 i.e. the very next
day of passing of the order of suspension,
the services of appellant were terminated
and papers were forwarded for grant of
approval to the District Basic Education
Officer. The District Basic Education
Officer has recorded in his order that
appropriate decision relating to grant of
approval would be taken later. However,
claim of payment of salary to the appellant
has been rejected. Aggrieved by this order
dated 31.3.2017, the appellant filed Writ-A
No. 24667 of 2017, which has been
disposed of by the learned Single Judge
vide order under challenge.

5. We have heard Shri Prabhakar
Awasthi for the appellant, Shri K.N. Mishra
for the Committee of Management and
learned
State
Counsel
representing
respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

6. Upon hearing the counsel for the
parties, it transpires that Institution is a
duly recognized Junior High School and
the service conditions of the Class-II and
Class-IV employees in the Institution
would be governed by the provisions of
Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools
(Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And
Conditions Of Service Of Ministerial Staff
And Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984.
Rule 21 would be attracted in the facts of
the present case, which is reproduced
hereinafter:-

"21- Termination of Service-No
clerk or group 'D' employee of a
recognized school may be discharged or
removed or dismissed from service or
reduced in rank or subjected to any
diminution in emoluments or served with
notice of termination of service except with
the prior approval in writing of the District
Basic Education Officer:-

Provided that, in the case of
schools established and administered by
minority referred to in clause 1 of the
Article 30 of the Constitution, such an
order shall not require the approval of
District Basic Education Officer, but shall
be reported to him."
4 All. Vijay Prakash Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
149

7. Rule 21 clearly mandates that a
Group 'D' employee cannot be terminated
except with the prior approval, in writing of
the District Basic Education Officer.

8. In the facts of the case, it is
apparent that the appellant had approached
this Court with the grievance that the
Committee
of
Management
is
not
permitting him to incorporate his signatures
on the attendance register and he is not
being permitted to work. It was this grievance
of the appellant which was directed to be
considered by the District Basic Education
Officer. The District Basic Education Officer,
however has proceeded on a tangent and has
mechanically rejected the claim of the
appellant for payment of salary on the ground
that the appellant's services have already
terminated by the Managing Committee. The
District Basic Education Officer in the self
same order has recorded that appropriate
decision would be taken later with regard to
grant of approval to the order of termination.
It is thus admitted in the order of the officer
that no prior approval was accorded, in
writing, by the competent authority and
consequently the termination order would be
in clear derogation of Rule 21 of the
applicable Rules.

9. We are at a loss to understand as to
how the District Basic Education Officer
could reject the claim of the appellant when it
is admitted to the officer concerned that no
prior approval was obtained by the Managing
Committee before terminating the services of
the appellant. Rule 21 has neither been
noticed by the District Basic Education
Officer nor the attention of learned Single
Judge appears to have been invited to it. We
further find from the order of District Basic
Education Officer that on 9.4.2014 a
decision
was
taken
to
proceed
departmentally against the appellant. On
the very next day i.e. 10.4.2014 the
appellant has been terminated from service.
It is, therefore, apparent that no enquiry
whatsoever has been conducted in the
matter by the Managing Committee of the
Institution, and therefore, the order of
termination otherwise could not have been
sustained.

10. We may note that when the writ
petition was earlier placed for hearing on
4.7.2017, the learned Single Judge had
passed the following orders:-

"The petitioner is a Class-IV
employee
working
in
a
recogised
institution,
namely,
Mahajan
Laghu
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Salempur, Deoria.
He was prevented from signing the
attendance register and his salary was also
stopped since 2013. Later, the salaries of
two
other
employees
were
released,
however, in respect of the petitioner's
grievance no decision was taken by the
Committee of Management.

Aggrieved
by
the
said
highhandedness of the respondents, the
petitioner instituted a writ petition, being
Writ-A No. 7588 of 2016 (Vijay Prakash
Verma v. State of U.P. and others) for
redressal of his grievance. In the said writ
petition this Court issued a direction to the
District Basic Education Officer to decide
the matter within three months. The said
order was passed by this Court on 19th
February, 2016. It is stated that the said
order was served upon the District Basic
Education Officer but he did not comply
with the same. Hence, the petitioner was
compelled to file Contempt Application
(Civil) No. 6230 of 2016, wherein on 20th
March, 2017 this Court has ordered as
under:

"Despite
the
order
dated
06.02.2017, neither the counsel appearing
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the opposite party no. 1 has put in
appearance nor has the opposite party
no. 1 complied with the order nor is he
present in the Court.

Issue
bailable
warrant
to
opposite party no. 1 through the CJM,
Deoria."

It is stated that after the
aforesaid
order,
the
District
Basic
Education
Officer
has
passed
the
impugned order dated 31st March, 2017,
whereunder he has again not decided the
matter and has observed that he has
received
the
documents
from
the
Committee of Management in respect of
suspension order of the petitioner on 21st
July, 2014 and the subsequent decision of
the Committee of Management dismissing
the services of the petitioner and the
order shall be passed by him later on.

Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for
the petitioner, submits that the conduct of
the District Basic Education Officer
clearly indicates that his orders are
infected by malafide and still he is sitting
over the matter in spite of the positive
direction of this Court in its order dated
19th February, 2016 to pass the order
within three months. He further submits
that the impugned order is just an eyewash and the District Basic Education
Officer has not taken any decision and
the petitioner, who is a poor Class-IV
employee, is without salary since 2013.

In view of the above, the conduct
of the District Basic Education Officer
needs examination.

Accordingly, the District Basic
Education Officer, Deoria is directed to file
his personal affidavit on or before 14th
July, 2017. In case the affidavit is not filed,
he shall be personally present in the Court
along with the record on the next date.

Put up this case on 14th July,
2017 in the additional cause list."

11. It is thereafter that the District
Basic Education Offer has filed his
personal affidavit. The only explanation
offered by the officer in his personal
affidavit is that the officer has recently
joined. In para 6 of the affidavit, it is
clearly admitted that no approval has been
granted to the termination of petitionerappellant. The fact that prior approval has
not been obtained before terminating the
services of the petitioner is therefore
admitted on record. Once that be so, the
termination order itself would be illegal for
non
compliance
of
the
mandatory
procedure stipulated in Rule 21 of the
Rules of 1984. The order passed by the
District Basic Education Officer rejecting
the claim of salary of the appellant for such
purpose
cannot
be
sustained.
The
termination order dated 10.7.2014 would be
equally bad for such reason.

12. The view taken by learned Single
Judge in calling upon the District Basic
Education Officer to take a decision in the
matter relating to grant of approval also
cannot be sustained, as the law mandates
requirement of a prior approval, which
cannot be cured by any subsequent
approval to be obtained from the officer
concerned. The judgment of learned Single,
dated 18.1.2024, thus cannot be sustained.

13.

Consequently,
this
appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The order passed
by learned Single Judge dated 18.1.2024 in
Writ-A No. 24667 of 2017 is set aside. The
order
passed
by
the
District
Basic
Education Officer dated 31.3.2017 is also
quashed. The appellant shall be reinstated
in service forthwith. It shall however be
open for the employer to conduct an
enquiry against the appellant for the alleged
absence from work within a period of four
months
from
today.
The
appellant's
4 All. Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
151
contention that he was actually presented
from work shall be examined, as per law. It
shall also be open to the Management to
place the appellant under suspension for the
purposes of holding of the enquiry. The
subsistence allowance as well as arrears in
that regard would be paid to the appellant
within a period of six weeks from today.
The decision taken by the Committee of
Management upon conclusion of such
enquiry, would determine the entitlement
of the appellant to arrears of salary etc.
subject to appropriate approval of District
Basic Education Offer in terms of Rule 21,
if so required.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 151
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2024

BEFORE

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

Special Appeal Defective No. 425 of 2023

Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, Sri Seemant
Singh, Sri H.N. Singh (Sr. Advocate), Sri
G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Siddharth Singhal

Service Law - Recruitment - Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate Service Selection Commission
- Revenue Lekhpal Examination, 2022 -
Challenge to Answer Key - Questions 78 and 93
(Booklet Series 'F') - Question 78 on PURA
scheme (Providing Urban Amenities to Rural
Areas) upheld as correct, despite scheme's
discontinuation in 2015-16, as question only
asked which scheme proposes to prevent ruralto-urban
youth
migration;
PURA
correctly
identified as the only such scheme among options.
Question 93 on Kanya Vidya Dhan Yojana upheld,
though poorly framed, as it correctly identifies Rs.
30,000 as the amount payable, despite omitting
that payment is post-intermediate examination for
high school pass-outs pursuing higher education.
Scope
of
judicial
interference
in
public
examinations limited; questions not wrong or
incomprehensible, and some latitude must be
given to examining authority. Appellant's score
(78.75, OBC) below cut-off (81.25); no relief
warranted even if appeal allowed, as per Rule
8(2)(iv) of U.P. Direct Recruitment to Group-C
Posts Rules, 2015. Single Judge's dismissal of WritA No. 19234 of 2022 upheld. (Paras 17-26)

Special Appeal Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Ran Vijay Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC
357 (Para 14)

2. Secretary (Health), Dept. of Health and Family
Welfare Vs Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282 (Para
23)

3. Kapil Kumar Vs St. of U.P., 2023 (12) ADJ 338
(DB) (Para 15)

4. Special Appeal Defective No. 112 of 2024 (Para
14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned
counsel for the appellant, Sri Siddharth
Singhal, learned counsel for the Commission,
Sri H.N. Singh and Sri G.K. Singh, learned
Senior counsels for the selected candidates.

2. Delay in filing the present appeal is
explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
Delay is, accordingly, condoned.

3. Appellant is aggrieved by rejection
of his writ petition no.19234 of 2022,
whereby challenge laid to the answer to