JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. DIRECTOR EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are interconnected and in both the writ petitions order dated 19/20th March, 2005, passed by the Director of Education is under challenge, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the present case, inter alia, are that Sri Amar Singh, real brother of the petitioner Rishipal was elected and appointed as Manager of the Committee of Management of the School, however, he has tendered his resignation from the post of Manager on 16.01.2000; Sri Jagdish Prasad Saini was working as Assistant Teacher in Nehru Intermediate College, Badshahpur, District Haridwar; Sri Jagdish Prasad Saini Assistant Teacher of the School also submitted his resignation; resignations of Sri Jagdish Prasad Saini and of the then Manager Sri Amar Singh were placed for acceptance in the meeting of the Management Committee of the school held on 16.01.2000; Management Committee recommended acceptance of resignation of Sri Jagdish Prasad Saini, Assistant Teacher; Management Committee vide resolution dated 16.01.2000 was further pleased to accept resignation of Sri Amar Singh, Manager of the School and Sri Sita Ram, the then Deputy Manager was appointed as Manager of the School for the period till next election of Committee of Management takes place; resignation of Sri Jagdish Prasad Saini was accepted by the District Basic Education Officer, Haridwar on the recommendation of the Committee of Management on 28.01.2000, w.e.f. 31.01.2000; vide letter dated 04.02.2000, the District Basic Education Officer, Haridwar was pleased to accord his sanction to advertise the post, which has fallen vacant due to resignation of Sri Jagdish Prasad Saini and to fill up the same; post of the Assistant Teacher (Hindi) was advertised on 05.02.2000; as per the advertisement dated 05.02.2000, last date of submission of application was 22.02.2000 and interview was scheduled to be held on 27.02.2000; Rishipal (petitioner of writ petition no. 331 (S/S)of 2005) and Jagdish Prasad (petitioner of writ petition no. 388(S/S) of 2005) submitted their respective applications for the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi); interview, which was scheduled to be held on 27.02.2000 was postponed for 22.03.2000; interview was held on 22.03.2000 and ultimately result was declared on 02.08.2000 recommending the name of Rishipal for the appointment; Rishipal was appointed as Assistant Teacher since he was at Serial No. 1 in the merit list prepared by the Interview Board/Selection Committee; Jagdish Prasad has preferred writ petition no. 48571 of 2000 which was renumbered as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 2523 of 2001 challenging the appointment of Rishipal; writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 10.12.2004 giving liberty to Sri Jagdish Prasad to move representation before the Director of Education challenging the appointment of Rishipal and the Director of Education was directed to decide the representation by speaking order after hearing both the parties; Director of Education, having heard all the concerned, was pleased to pass the order dated 19/20 March, 2005 holding that Sri Amar Singh, the then Manager of the School was real brother of Rishipal, therefore, as per Rule 6 of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978, Rishipal ought not to have been considered for the appointment; it was further held that appointment of Sri Sita Ram as new Manager and his participation in the Selection Committee was highly doubtful; the Director of Education further held that appointment of Sri Rishipal was bad in law; The Director of Education was further pleased to hold that since Sri Jagdish Prasad (petitioner of writ petition no. 388 of 2005 (S/S) was working as a IVth Class employee in the same college and did his B.Ed. as a regular candidate, therefore, he should refund the pay to the College since he did not attend the duties because he was regularly pursuing his B.Ed. as regular student; feeling aggrieved both the writ petitioners have preferred present writ petitions.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 331 of 2005 and Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, learned counsel appearing for the Jagdish Prasad respondent no.4 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 331 of 2005 as well as the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 388 of 2005. I have also heard Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Brief Holder appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and have carefully perused the record.