SHANKAR GUPTA Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE 1972 Shri Nehru Inter College, Pateherwa, District Deoria used to run primary school which was integral part of this institution being managed by the common management and there being one Principal or head master for the entire institution. The payment of salary of the high school was being paid by the Government in terms of the provisions contained in U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 1971 Act. By the Government Order dated 6.9.1989 (Government order for short) recognition of 393 primary schools attached to different high schools were granted on the terms and conditions contained in the said order, which provided that such schools should have been continued to be run since 1973 as an integral part of the same institution. The salary of the teachers working in the said primary schools so recognised by virtue of the said Government order dated 6.9.1989 were to be paid under the 1971 Act. After the said Government order was issued the petitioners forwarded a list of teachers as required under the said Government Order. But the responsibility of the payment of salary under the 1971 Act for 12 teachers were accepted by the Government. Admittedly, as contended in para 7 of the writ petition, the rest four teachers were appointed after 6.9.1989. The petitioners contended that the number of teachers to be appointed in school are dependant on the ratio of the students. According to the norms laid down by the Government Order as well as circulars issued by the Director of Education U.P., Allahabad dated 21.10.1989 and 12.11.1989 respectively those four teachers were appointed keeping in view the ratio of the students and the teachers engaged in imparting education in the said primary sections. Refusal by the Government to accept the responsibility of payment of the said four teachers under the 1971 Act pursuant to the said Government Order dated 6.9.1989 is unwarranted. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the Government should pay salary of the petitioners with effect from 1.12.1989 namely the date on which the said teachers were appointed (annexures 5, 6, & 7), the information whereof was communicated to the District Inspector of Schools (annexure 8). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the order dated 6.9.1989 does not specify any condition that only those teachers who were appointed prior to 6.9.1989 be entitled to the payment under the 1971 Act and the Government would accept the responsibility with regard to those teachers only. The said Government Order does not postulate that teachers appointed after 6.9.1989 would be excluded form the purview of the said Government Order. According to him since the recruitment of teachers in the primary sections are not governed by the U.P. Secondary School Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Act), therefore, it is the Committee of Management who is free to make appointment on the basis of the circular governing the norms i.e. on the ratio of the teachers and the taught. Therefore, on the basis of the ratio of the students the number of teachers were fixed and given appointment, therefore, the order for refusal to pay the salary of those four teachers cannot be sustained.

(2.) THE respondents in the counter affidavit, however, denied the liability of the Government to pay the salary of those teachers. As translated at the bar it appears from para 6 of the counter affidavit that the recognition of the primary schools were given by the order dated 6.9.1989 and the liability of payment of salary of the teachers from 1.10.1989 was taken over but so far as the salary for the period prior to October, 1989 payable to those teachers was made the responsibility of the school authority and the Government did not take any responsibility therefore. The said Government Order never meant that teachers appointed by the Committee of management after 1.10.1989 would also be included.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 supported the case of the petitioners. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioners, however, reiterated their case as pleaded in the writ petition.