INDIRA DANIELS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, in the instant writ petition, is questioning the validity of order dated 3.12.2004 passed by the Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Government at Lucknow, refusing to extend the tenure of service of petitioner in lieu of her receiving National Award for Teachers.

(2.) Brief background of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that in the district of Agra, there is an institution known as Queen Victoria Girls Inter College, Agra. The said institution is recognised under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and has been receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 are fully applicable to the said institution. The institution in question is also declared Minority Institution, as such all protection as is envisaged under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, is available to it. In the said institution, petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Economics on 7.7.1969. Permanent Principal of the institution attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2000, and as a result of the same substantive vacancy of the post of Principal came into existence. The Committee of Management of the institution proceeded to make selection and appointment in terms of Section 16--FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and petitioner was selected as Principal in the said selection held on 3.7.2000. Appointment letter was issued to her on 5.7.2000. The work and conduct of the petitioner had been satisfactory, and due to excellent service rendered by petitioner, her name was forwarded for National Award under communication letter dated 7.12.2002. The said request of the Committee of Management had been forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools to the Joint Director of Education for further transmission of the same to the State Government. While the matter was pending and engaging attention of the Government for grant of National Award, petitioner attained the age of superannuation, and ultimately she was retired from service on 30.6.2003. The Central Government after considering the excellent work and service of the petitioner resolved to accord National Award to her on 5.9.2003. After the said award had been received, the District Inspector of Schools forwarded the papers in regard to extension of service of petitioner to the State Government. The Additional Director of Education made recommendation in favour of petitioner that petitioner was entitled to extension of two years of service with effect from 1.7.2003. As no action was being taken, petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38846 of 2004, and this Court asked the State Government to take decision in the matter. Thereafter, communication dated 3.12.2004 has been sent by the State Government refusing to accord extension in service on the pretext that petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation before receiving the National Award, as such, it was not legally permissible to accord extension of service to a superannuated employee. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Management of the institution, it has been contended that at no point of time any resolution had been passed by the Committee of Management for extension of service of petitioner on account of National Award received by the petitioner. Further, it has been contended that Additional Director of Education has no authority to make recommendation for extension of petitioner's service by two years without taking into consideration the view of the Committee of Management of the institution, especially when the institution in question is a minority institution. It has also been asserted that as substantive vacancy had fallen vacant, as such request had been made to the Joint Director of Education for according permission to fill up the vacancy, and thereafter selection proceedings had been undertaken and one Smt. Meenakshi Dass had been selected and appointed as Principal on 1.7.2003, who has been performing and discharging her duties as such. Impleadment Application as well as counter-affidavit has been filed by Smt. Meenakshi Dass to the similar effect. Counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of State-respondents, and the stand taken by the Management has been sought to be supported. To all these counter-affidavits, rejoinder affidavits have been filed, and the statement of fact mentioned in the counter-affidavits have been rebutted and those of writ petition have been reiterated. In respect to appointment of Smt. Meenakshi Dass, it has been contended that till date she has not acquired the status of Principal, as no approval had been accorded under Section 16-FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as such no right has accrued to her and as discrimination has been practiced by the State Government, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.