Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8584 of 2009 Petitioner :- Virendra Singh S/O Sri Satpal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secretary Education And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Dr.L.P.Misra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard Dr. L.P. Misra and the learned standing counsel. The petitioner has
challenged annexure-1 a letter written to the Manager of Khalsa Inter College,
Lucknow by the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 27.8. 2009.
In this letter the D.I.O.S. has raised seven objections/ querries regarding the
selection, which has been made by the Management, in pursuance of Section
16-FF of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that undisputedly Khalsa Inter
College, Lucknow is a minority institution and the right of appointment on the
post of teachers lies with the management. He further argues that role of the
D.I.O.S comes only as an officer testing the qualification of the teachers
meaning thereby that the approval of the selection conducted by the
management can be refused by him only on the ground of qualification. He
has further drawn the attention of this Court towards regulation 17-(g) of
Chapter- II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act. This is the deeming clause, which provides that in case approval is
sought from the D.I.O.S. and the same is not approved/ rejected within a
period of one month, then it shall be deemed that the approval has been
granted. In the present case, admittedly a request for approval was received by
the D.I.O.S. vide letter dated 22.5.2009, which has been annexed as annexure-
11 to the writ petition. By this the D.I.O.S. has sent a letter to the Joint
Director of Education that necessary approval may be granted. According to
Dr. L.P. Misra, same has been done at the level of the Joint Director. The
petitioner assuming that his appointment has been approved under the
deeming clause, was allowed to join. On 27.8. 2009, the impugned order has
been passed.
The argument of the petitioner’s counsel firstly is that the D.I.O.S. has no
jurisdiction to travel beyond the scope of Section 16-FF, wherein he has only
to look into the qualifications and nothing more and secondly that on 21.6.
2009 after the expiry of one month, he had no jurisdiction to raise any
objection regarding appointment of the petitioner.
Learned standing counsel, on behalf of the D.I.O.S., has argued that since the
number of posts to be sanctioned in the College is the duty and domain of the
State Govt., hence it naturally falls within the powers of the D.I.O.S. to
ascertain whether there are sufficient number of students for whom further
appointments are being made. According to the learned standing counsel, in
Intermediate there are only seven students and in High School there are forty
two students. According to him, six lecturers and fifteen assistant teachers are
already working in the College, hence there is no occasion to appoint further
teachers in the College.
So far validity of the regulation 16-FF and the Regulations mentioned therein
is concerned, Sri Manjive Shukla says that he wants little time to study the
legal proposition raised by Dr. L.P. Misra. Accordingly list this case on
18.1.2010 as fresh to enable him to assist this Court.
Order Date :- 7.1.2010
Sadiq