School management

Allahabad HC says school management has no right to appoint teachers

The Allahabad High Court said that contrary to the Education Act, the school management does not have the right to appoint teachers.

The divisional bench of Judge Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Judge Jayant Banerji adopted this order while hearing a special default appeal filed by Krishna Mohan Tiwari.

The Special Appeal was filed to seek the rescission of the Order dated October 6, 2021 issued by a Single Judge, whereby the Motion for Writ filed by the Appellant was dismissed.

The undisputed facts of the case are that a certain Jai Narain Vishwakarma was a lecturer in civics and retired on June 30, 1998.

Thus, a substantial vacancy occurred at Vishwakarma’s retirement but no requisition was made by the Management Committee to fill the post of lecturer in civics. The procedure prescribed by the provisions of the Secondary Education Services and UP Selection Committee Act 1982 was not followed at all by the management committee and instead the management committee he himself advertised the post on 11 April 1998/16 April 1998 and appointed the Applicant to the post of Lecturer, who would have joined on 31 August 1998.

The Single Judge, while referring to various provisions of the UP Intermediate Education Act 1921, particularly with regard to the provisions of section 16(2) of the Education Services Act 1982 and the UP selection committee, came to the conclusion that the applicant’s appointment was void because the procedure prescribed in subsection (1) of section 16 of the 1982 Act had not been followed at all .

Counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant relied on a full court judgment in Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of UP & Ors reported in 2015 (5) AWC 4719 and argued that, taking into account the provisions of section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act 1921, the management committee has the power to make ad hoc appointments.

“We have carefully considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner-appellant and find no strength in his submissions,” the court said.

The Court held that,

It was admitted in court by counsel for the claimant that the claimant-claimant was appointed by the Management Committee on a substantial vacancy pursuant to the opinion of 11 April 1998/16 April 1998 issued by the Management Committee.

This substantial vacancy occurred upon the retirement of a certain Jai Narain Vishwakarma on June 30, 1998. The Applicant was appointed by the Management Committee and he joined on August 31, 1998. The provisions of Section 16 (1 ) of the 1982 law were not followed at all. Thus, under the procedure provided for in paragraph (1) of section 16 of the 1982 Act, the applicant’s appointment by the management committee was void.

The Court observed that the Full Bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) dealt with the situation where the ad hoc appointment had to be made due to a temporary vacancy caused by the granting of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or in the event of death, termination or other, of a holder occurring during a teaching session.

The facts of the case are that a substantial vacancy occurred upon the retirement of a certain Jai Narain Vishwakarma on June 30, 1998 and that the Management Committee, without following the statutory provisions of the 1982 Act , made an announcement on April 11, 1998/ April 16, 1998 and selected and named the applicant who would have joined on August 31, 1998. Thus, the judgment of the plenary session has no application to the facts of the case.

Thus, for all the reasons set out above, the Court finds no error or illegality in the order issued by the single judge. The special appeal is without merit and is therefore dismissed, the court ordered.