The Allahabad High Court has said that contrary to the Education Act, the school management does not have the right to appoint teachers.
The Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji passed this order while hearing a Special Appeal Defective filed by Krishna Mohan Tiwari.
The special appeal has been filed praying to set aside the order dated October 6, 2021 passed by a Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
Undisputed facts of the case are that one Jai Narain Vishwakarma was Lecturer in Civics who superannuated on June 30, 1998.
Thus, a substantive vacancy occurred on Vishwakarma’s retirement but no requisition was made by the Committee of Management to fill up the post of Lecturer in Civics. The procedure prescribed under the provisions of the UP Secondary Education Services and Selection Board Act, 1982 was not followed at all by the Committee of Management and instead the Committee of Management itself advertised the post on April 11, 1998/April 16, 1998 and appointed the petitioner to the post of Lecturer, who allegedly joined on August 31, 1998.
The Single Judge, while referring to various provisions of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921, particularly in view of the provisions of Section 16(2) of the UP Secondary Education Services and Selection Board Act, 1982, came to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner was void as the procedure prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act of 1982 had not been followed at all.
Counsel for the petitioner-appellant has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of the Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P & Ors reported in 2015 (5) AWC 4719 and submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Committee of Management has power to make ad-hoc appointments.
“We have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner-appellant and we find no force in his submissions,” the Court said.
The Court held that,
It has been admitted before the court by counsel for the appellant that the petitioner-appellant was appointed by the Committee of Management against a substantive vacancy pursuant to advertisement dated April 11, 1998/April 16, 1998 issued by the Committee of Management.
That substantive vacancy occurred on retirement of one Jai Narain Vishwakarma on June 30, 1998. The petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management and he joined on August 31, 1998. The provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act of 1982 were not followed at all. Thus, in terms of the procedure contained in sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act of 1982, the appointment of the petitioner by the Committee of Management was void.
The Court observed that, the Full Bench in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) has dealt with the situation where the ad-hoc appointment was to be made against a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or in case of death, termination or otherwise, of an incumbent occurring during an educational session.
The facts of the case are that a substantive vacancy was occurred on the retirement of one Jai Narain Vishwakarma on June 30, 1998 and the Committee of Management, without following the statutory provisions of the Act of 1982, made advertisement on April 11, 1998/April 16, 1998 and selected and appointed the petitioner who allegedly joined on August 31, 1998. Thus, the judgment of the Full Bench has no application on facts of the case.
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the Court does not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Single Judge. The special appeal lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed, the Court ordered.