JAI PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are against a common judgment and order, and accordingly, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.

(2.) SHRI Jai Prakash Singh was appointed by the respondent -School in the year 1983, whereas Shri Jai Prakash Pandey is working in the institution since 1990. The fact remains that the school in question was permanently recognized in 1987. In order to discharge obligations of such permanent recognition, the School published an advertisement for filing up the sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers. This advertisement was published in 1989. The teachers, who were then working including Jai Prakash Singh, responded to the said advertisement. After selection was completed, amongst others, Jai Prakash Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher. In 1991, the School became entitled to grant -in -aid. When the School became entitled to grant -in -aid, a question cropped up, whether Jai Prakash Pandey is also entitled to the benefit of such grant. The matter was considered by the Basic Education Officer, who by an order recorded that Jai Prakash Pandey is entitled to the benefit of grant -in -aid but Jai Prakash Singh is not entitled to the same, inasmuch as, in 1989, when he was appointed pursuant to the selection after he responded to the advertisement, the Manager of the School was the uncle of Jai Prakash Singh. This decision was assailed in a writ petition. The writ court disposed of the matter by directing the Director of Education to look into the claims of Jai Prakash Singh and Jai Prakash Pandey. By the order impugned in the writ petition, on which the judgment and order under appeal has been rendered, it was held by the Director of Education that Jai Prakash Singh, having been appointed after selection, was entitled to the benefit of grant -in -aid but Jai Prakash Pandey, having not been appointed after being selected, is not entitled to the benefits of grant -in -aid. Jai Prakash Pandey, therefore, approached this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court, by the judgment and order under appeals, has rejected the claim of Jai Prakash Pandey that his claim is covered by the grant -in -aid and hence an appeal has been preferred by Jai Prakash Pandey. At the same time, the learned Judge, noting that the appointment of Jai Prakash Singh in 1989 was contrary to the expressed provisions of the Rules, held appointment of Jai Prakash Singh, being contrary to law, cannot be sustained, and accordingly, he too is not covered by the benefits of grant -in -aid. Hence a separate appeal has been preferred by Shri Jai Prakash Singh.

(3.) ON behalf of Jai Prakash Pandey, it was contended that the undisputed fact remains that his client served this School continuously since 1990 and now he has become over aged, and accordingly, is not entitled to be appointed in any other government post. It was submitted that having regard to long services rendered by Jai Prakash Pandey, his case should be treated with compassion. The learned counsel for Jai Prakash Singh submitted that in so far as his client is concerned, he was appointed in 1983 and thereafter was re -appointed in 1989. It was submitted by him that in 1983 his uncle was not the Manager, nor was associated with the Committee of Management of the School. It was submitted that although in 1989 his uncle was Manager of the Committee of Management of the School but the fact remains that the re -appointment of 1989 was in fact a continuation of the appointment of 1983, and accordingly, at the best it can be said that an irregular appointment was given to Jai Prakash Singh and not an illegal appointment. The learned counsel further submitted that Jai Prakash Singh was duly appointed after selection in 1989 and continuously rendered services until today and his appointment having been upheld by the Director, School Education, this Court erred in holding that Jai Prakash Singh is not covered by the benefits of grant -in -aid.