Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 948 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ranjit Singh And Others Respondent :- District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mathura And Others Petitioner Counsel :- H.N. Sharma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello,Chief Justice Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. M.S. Pipersenia,
learned Standing Counsel appears for the State-respondents.
The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 11.5.2010. They approached this Court as according
to them, though the school was permanently recognized and
became an aided school on 16.12.1998, they have not been paid
their salary. According to the appellants, they were appointed on
12.7.1992 and approval was granted to the appointments on
28.12.1992.
The first three appellants were appointed as Assistant Teachers and
the appellant no. 4 as a peon. The institution is a Junior High
School.
The learned Single Judge in the impugned order was pleased to
hold that the Committee which selected the appellants was not
properly constituted and also was further pleased to record a
finding that the appellants did not have the prescribed
qualifications as required under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1978 as then
was applicable.
After hearing the parties at length and perusing the records, we
find that insofar as the first three appellants are concerned who
were appointed as Assistant Teachers, they did not have the
qualification as they were possessing a B.Ed. degree, which was
not the requisite essential qualification. To that extent and
considering the earlier order passed by this Court dated 6.5.2003
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19825 of 2001 wherein the
Court had directed the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mathura to
consider whether the teachers are validly appointed and their
appointment has been duly approved, the findings of the learned
Single Judge cannot be faulted.
However, on a perusal of the record, we find that the case of
appellant no. 4, who was the original petitioner no. 4 in the writ
petition is totally on a different basis. The appellant no. 4, who was
appointed as peon, as per the record, at the time of his
appointment, possessed a qualification of Intermediate. The
minimum qualification was class 5th standard. In other words, the
appellant no. 4 was fully possessed of the essential qualification.
His appointment is stated to have been approved on 12.12.1995. In
fact, from the record we find that in 2004 the authorities
themselves have noted that there was no further requirement of
approval to the appointment of the petitioner in 1995 considering
his earlier approval. These aspects simply have not been
considered either by the authorities nor the attention of the learned
Single Judge was drawn on these aspects. As a matter of fact, the
issue of the appellant no. 4 has not been dealt with at all by the
learned Single Judge or by the State Government in the impugned
order.
Considering the above, this appeal can be disposed of by issuing
the following directions.
(i) Insofar as the appellant nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, no
interference is called for in the judgment of the learned Single
Judge.
(ii) Insofar as the appellant no. 4 is concerned, namely Kamlesh
Kumar, we direct the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mathura to
consider his case in the light of what we have observed and release
salary grants if otherwise the appellant no. 4 is entitled to, within a
period of 12 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is
served upon him.
(iii) To that extent, the order of the State Government stands
modified.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(A.P. Sahi,J) (F.I. Rebello,CJ) Order Date :- 6.7.2010 RK