A.F.R. Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42439 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Rai And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,Devesh Kumar Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.
Petitioners seek quashing of the advertisement dated 19th June, 2010
published by the Manager, Nehru Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pahalwanpur,
District Ghazipur, wherein the poSt of head-master of the institution along
with other posts has been advertised. The said advertisement is being
challenged on the ground that the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 7508
of 2010 alleging therein that charge of the post of principal pending regular
appointment has been handed over to a person junior to the petitioner no.1,
which was illegal. This Court vide order dated 11tyh February, 2010 directed
that the grievance of the petitioner no. 1 may be examined by the District
Basic Education Officer on a representation to be made by the petitioner no.1.
The District Basic Education Officer did not pass any order within time.
Therefore, they filed Contempt Petition No. 3095 of 2010, where-under
notices have been issued permitting the authorities to comply with the order.
Such order has been passed by the Contempt Court only on 9th July, 2010 and
20th August, 2010 as the date fixed.
This Court has no room to doubt that the respondent-authorities shall ensure
the compliance of the order passed earlier by the Writ Court.
However, what has to be examined by this Court is as to whether, there is any
illegality in the advertisement published by the Manager of the institution or
not. It is not in dispute that appointment on the post of head-master of a
recognized junior high school is regulated by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh
Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1978”). The
mode and manner of appointment on the post of head master has been
provided by way of direct recruitment only on a recommendation of the
Selection Committee after due advertisement of the vacancy in two
newspapers (Reference Rules-7,9 and 10 of Rules, 1978). So far as the
temporary appointments are concerned, Rule-20 of Rules, 1978 takes care of
the situation and reads as follows:
“20. Temporary appointment.—Notwithstanding anything contained in these
rules, the Management may, with the previous approval of the District Basic
Education Officer, appoint for a period not exceeding six months any person
as Headmaster or Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, provided that no
person shall be so appointed, unless he possesses the minimum qualification
prescribed for the post :
Provided further that the District Basic Education Officer may, for reasons to
be recorded, extend the aforesaid period of six months for a period co-
terminous with the end of academic session in which extension is granted.”
Under Rule-20 of Rules, 1978, temporary appoint can only be made with the
approval of the District Basic Education Officer for a period, not exceeding
six months and the said period may be extended, for the reasons to be
recorded, for a period co-terminous with the end of academic session.
Therefore, in no case any temporary appointment under the statutory Rules,
1978 can extend beyond the period of six months or till the end of academic
session. In the facts of the present case, the said period of six months has
expired and academic session has also come to an end on 30th June, 2010. In
such circumstances, there can be no further temporary appointment on the
post of Principal by whatever name, it may be called. Therefore, the
Committee of Management is justified in advertising the vacancy for regular
appointment on the post of principal/head master.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that advertisement is
not in accordance with Rule-7 of Rules, 1978 and therefore, illegal. It is not
necessary for the Court to enter into the aforesaid issue at this stage, inasmuch
as the appointment on the post of head-master can be made with the approval
of the District Basic Education Officer only (Reference rule 10 (5) read with
Rule-11 of Rules, 1978.
In such circumstances, petitioner may approach the District Basic Education
Officer, Ghazipur questioning the advertisement published, by way of
representation, along with a certified copy of this order. On such
representation being made, District Basic Education Officer shall ensure that
advertisement is made striclty in accordance with Rule-7 of Rules, 1978 as
required before any selections are held. This will not mean that the provisions
of Rule 20 of Rules, 1978 are to be violated.
The present writ petition is disposed of subject to the observations made
above.
(Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 22.7.2010
Sushil/-