Lal Bahadur Shastri S. Jr. High School & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3122 of 2002
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 14059 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 14059 of 2000)
Petitioner: Lal Bahadur Shastri S. Jr. High School & Anr.
Respondent: State of U.P. & Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3122 of 2002
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 14059 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 14059 of 2000)
Judges: D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 26, 2002
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Educational institution – Secondary school – Sanction for additional posts of teachers – Appellant junior school making application for sanction of three additional posts of assistant teachers consequent upon addition of sections in classes VI and VIII which were duly sanctioned by the authorities – Director of education refusing to grant approval for the additional posts of teachers – High Court not considering the matter on merits but dismissing the writ petition preferred by the school with directions to the director of education to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders – Authorities however not considering the matter – Validity. Held, financial sanction of the government may be an administrative pre condition for the director which he should have obtained but that cannot be accepted as the sole ground for rejecting the request for the additional posts in the context of sanction of additional sections in classes VI and VIII. High Court wrong in not considering the matter on merits but dismissing the petition. Orders passed by the High Court accordingly set aside with directions to the director to consider the request of the appellant institution. (Paras 5, 6 and 7)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Leave is granted.
2. Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Smarak Junior High School, Garhi Pukhta, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, through its Manager Shri R.P. Singh filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29168 of 1998 before the Allahabad High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents i.e. the State of U.P. through the secretary, Basic Education, the Director of Education (Basic) and the District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar, to sanction three additional posts of assistant teachers for the school. The writ petition was dismissed by learned single Judge vide order dated 10.9.1998 with the following observations:
“I find that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on valid grounds. It is not a fit case in which interference is warranted. The policy decision taken by the State Govt. cannot be gone into.
The writ petition is dismissed. However, as and when financial provisions are made, question of provisions are made, question of creation of post in the petitioner institution shall remain open.”
3. The appellants filed special appeal No. 932 of 1998 in the High Court assailing the order of the learned single judge. The said appeal was dismissed by a division bench of the High Court vide its judgment/ order dated 22.4.2000 with the following observations:
“On the contrary, the appellants want creation of some additional post of teachers which has been refused by the Director of Education (Basic) on the ground that the state government has not made any financial provision for the same. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that the appellants have any legal right to claim creation of additional posts.
In this view of the matter , we find no merit in the Special Appeal which is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.”
The judgment/order of the division bench confirming the order passed by the learned single judge is under challenge in this appeal.
4. On analysis of the case of the parties, the question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh was right in rejecting for creation of three additional posts of teachers for the additional sections in classes VI and VIII which were sanctioned by the District Inspector of School vide order dated 27.7.1987. The further question which is to be considered is whether the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition and the special appeal on the ground that the appellants have no right to claim sanction of the additional posts of teachers.
5. As noted earlier, the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar vide the order dated 27th July, 1987 accepted the request of the management of the school and sanctioned additional sections in classes VI and VIII. In the government order dated 20.1.1986 the standard staffing pattern of the teaching staff for a recognized junior high school is set out. It is also provided in the government order that whenever additional classes or sections are permitted to be opened in the school, additional teachers should be appointed so that teaching in the newly opened classes does not suffer. In this case the matter relating to sanction of additional posts of teachers has been dragging on since 1987 and the problem remains unsolved. From the order passed by the Director it is clear that the authority did not consider the matter in proper perspective. No attempt was made to ascertain if there is a need for extra teachers in the school. The ground of want of financial sanction of the government is in our consideration not an acceptable reason particularly after the additional sections in the two classes were sanctioned by the District Inspector. Despite the directions of the High Court to the Director of Education (Basic) to examine the matter and pass appropriate order vide order dated 4.3.1997 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 7785 of 1997, care has not been taken to consider the relevant aspects of the matter.
6. The High Court also did not considered the matter on merit but dismissed the writ petition and the special appeal merely on the ground that the writ petitioners had no right to get sanction of the additional posts of teachers. The High Court failed to take note of the fact that the additional sections had been sanctioned by the departmental authority. Thereafter, to say that the management cannot claim extra posts is in our view contradictory and against maintenance of proper standard of teaching in educational institutions. Financial sanction of the government may be an administrative pre-condition for the Director which he should have obtained but that cannot be accepted as the sole ground for rejecting the request of the management for the additional posts in the context of the sanction of additional sections.
7. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that all relevant aspects of the matter have not been considered by the Director while passing the order rejecting the appellants’ request for additional posts of teachers. The High Court also did not consider the matter on merits and dismissed the writ petition/special leave on the technical ground of want of enforceable right of the writ petitioners/appellants. The order passed by the Director as well as the judgments of the High Court are unsustainable. Therefore, the orders passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition and special appeal are set aside, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh dated 13.8.1998 is quashed. The Director will consider the request of the appellants’ school for sanction of additional posts of teachers for the extra sections sanctioned, in accordance with the norms set out in the government orders and executive instructions which were prevailing when the request of the management of the school was received in his office and pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of the receipt of the intimation of this order. The Director will give opportunity of hearing to the management of the school or its representative before passing the order.
8. The appeal is allowed. No cost.
1. Leave is granted.
2. Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Smarak Junior High School, Garhi Pukhta, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, through its Manager Shri R.P. Singh filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29168 of 1998 before the Allahabad High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents i.e. the State of U.P. through the secretary, Basic Education, the Director of Education (Basic) and the District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar, to sanction three additional posts of assistant teachers for the school. The writ petition was dismissed by learned single Judge vide order dated 10.9.1998 with the following observations:
“I find that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on valid grounds. It is not a fit case in which interference is warranted. The policy decision taken by the State Govt. cannot be gone into.
The writ petition is dismissed. However, as and when financial provisions are made, question of provisions are made, question of creation of post in the petitioner institution shall remain open.”
3. The appellants filed special appeal No. 932 of 1998 in the High Court assailing the order of the learned single judge. The said appeal was dismissed by a division bench of the High Court vide its judgment/ order dated 22.4.2000 with the following observations:
“On the contrary, the appellants want creation of some additional post of teachers which has been refused by the Director of Education (Basic) on the ground that the state government has not made any financial provision for the same. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that the appellants have any legal right to claim creation of additional posts.
In this view of the matter , we find no merit in the Special Appeal which is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.”
The judgment/order of the division bench confirming the order passed by the learned single judge is under challenge in this appeal.
4. On analysis of the case of the parties, the question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh was right in rejecting for creation of three additional posts of teachers for the additional sections in classes VI and VIII which were sanctioned by the District Inspector of School vide order dated 27.7.1987. The further question which is to be considered is whether the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition and the special appeal on the ground that the appellants have no right to claim sanction of the additional posts of teachers.
5. As noted earlier, the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar vide the order dated 27th July, 1987 accepted the request of the management of the school and sanctioned additional sections in classes VI and VIII. In the government order dated 20.1.1986 the standard staffing pattern of the teaching staff for a recognized junior high school is set out. It is also provided in the government order that whenever additional classes or sections are permitted to be opened in the school, additional teachers should be appointed so that teaching in the newly opened classes does not suffer. In this case the matter relating to sanction of additional posts of teachers has been dragging on since 1987 and the problem remains unsolved. From the order passed by the Director it is clear that the authority did not consider the matter in proper perspective. No attempt was made to ascertain if there is a need for extra teachers in the school. The ground of want of financial sanction of the government is in our consideration not an acceptable reason particularly after the additional sections in the two classes were sanctioned by the District Inspector. Despite the directions of the High Court to the Director of Education (Basic) to examine the matter and pass appropriate order vide order dated 4.3.1997 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 7785 of 1997, care has not been taken to consider the relevant aspects of the matter.
6. The High Court also did not considered the matter on merit but dismissed the writ petition and the special appeal merely on the ground that the writ petitioners had no right to get sanction of the additional posts of teachers. The High Court failed to take note of the fact that the additional sections had been sanctioned by the departmental authority. Thereafter, to say that the management cannot claim extra posts is in our view contradictory and against maintenance of proper standard of teaching in educational institutions. Financial sanction of the government may be an administrative pre-condition for the Director which he should have obtained but that cannot be accepted as the sole ground for rejecting the request of the management for the additional posts in the context of the sanction of additional sections.
7. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that all relevant aspects of the matter have not been considered by the Director while passing the order rejecting the appellants’ request for additional posts of teachers. The High Court also did not consider the matter on merits and dismissed the writ petition/special leave on the technical ground of want of enforceable right of the writ petitioners/appellants. The order passed by the Director as well as the judgments of the High Court are unsustainable. Therefore, the orders passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition and special appeal are set aside, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh dated 13.8.1998 is quashed. The Director will consider the request of the appellants’ school for sanction of additional posts of teachers for the extra sections sanctioned, in accordance with the norms set out in the government orders and executive instructions which were prevailing when the request of the management of the school was received in his office and pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of the receipt of the intimation of this order. The Director will give opportunity of hearing to the management of the school or its representative before passing the order.
8. The appeal is allowed. No cost.
