NAVIN CHANDRA Vs. BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Anil Bhushan on behalf of the petitioner, standing counsel on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4, Sri Anupam Shukla and Pramod Kumar Sharma on behalf of respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE institution by the name of Junior High School, Rustamgarh, district Etah, is a recognized institution under the provisions of the Basic Education Act and is also on the grant-in-aid list of the State. THE provisions of the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 are fully applicable to the said institution. THE said institution was taken on the grant-in-aid list of the State on 2.11.1985, w.e.f. 1984 and at the relevant time one post of Principal, 5 posts of teachers, clerk and class IV employees were duly sanctioned for the said institution. According to the petitioner the services of one Srimati Sudha Yadav who was working as Assistant Teacher in the institution and was being paid salary under the grant-in-aid upto the year 1996, were terminated by the Committee of Management the resolution whereof was approved by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari by order dated 22.11.1996. In the vacancy so caused the management applied for permission to make fresh appointment, after the permission was granted necessary advertisement was made and a selection committee was constituted. THE petitioner applied for the said post in pursuance of the said advertisement. THE selection committee found the petitioner to be most suitable and accordingly recommended the petitioner for appointment. Relevant papers for approval of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari were forwarded by the Committee of Management. THE Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide order dated 6.2.1997 approved the said selection and granted permission for appointment of the petitioner. THE Committee of Management issued appointment letter dated 7.2.1997 in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said appointment letter the petitioner joined on 8.2.1997 and since then is continuously working in the institution as Assistant Teacher. THE salary bill submitted by the management of the institution in respect of the petitioner was not cleared and an objection was raised by the Accounts Officer, respondent No. 4. THE matter as such was referred to the Director of Education (Basic). THE Director of Education (Basic) vide order dated 19.12.1998 turned down the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary on the ground that under the orders of this Court one Sri Ram Prakash was entitled to be adjusted against the vacancy which has been caused due to termination of services of Srimati Yadav in view of the fact that there were only 5 sanctioned posts of Assistant Teacher and if payment of salary is made to the petitioner it may amount to sanction of an additional post of Assistant Teacher. In compliance of the aforesaid order the Basic Shiksha Adhikari refused to grant permission for payment of salary to the petitioner vide letter dated 1.1.1999 with the remark that the vacancy which has been caused due to resignation of Srimati Sudha Yadav is to be adjusted by the appointment of Sri Ram Prakash. It is against the aforesaid order that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) ON behalf of the State it is submitted that the orders passed by the Director of Education (Basic) dated 29.12.1998 and that passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in compliance thereof dated 1.1.1999 have been issued in compliance of the judgment and order dated 25.8.1997 passed in the writ petition filed by Ram Prakash referred to above. There is no illegality in the said orders and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.