Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, Allahabad High Court
Allahabad High Court Upholds Appointment Of Assistant Teacher; Says Recruitment Doesn’t Become Illegal Merely Because District Basic Education Officer Didn’t Send Its Nominee
|The Allahabad High Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the appointment of an Assistant Teacher.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the appointment of an Assistant Teacher, reiterating that the recruitment process does not become illegal merely because the District Basic Education Officer did not send its nominee.
The Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the appointment of an Assistant Teacher, which was upheld by the Order of the Single Bench. The Single Bench had held that the District Basic Education Officer can not take advantage of his own default in sending a nominee.
A Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri remarked that “when there is absolutely no reason forthcoming as to why a nominee is not being sent and the recruitment is being adjourned successively, we are of the view that the Managing Committee otherwise being enjoined by the Rules to conclude recruitment within a stipulated period by virtue of rule 3, could proceed with the recruitment and make appointment. No exception to it can be taken in the facts of the case. The writ petitioner otherwise possesses requisite qualification and no illegality or irregularity in the process of recruitment has been pointed out. For such reasons, the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be faulted.”
Advocate Abhishek Srivastava appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Adarsh Singh represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The appointment was rejected on two grounds: the absence of the nominee [statutorily required under Rule 9 of Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978] of the District Basic Education Officer at the time of appointment and the assertion that the newspapers used for advertisement did not have wide circulation in the vicinity of the institution.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court remarked, “Though we find substance in the argument of the State Counsel that the composition of selection committee consisted of a nominee of the District Basic Education Officer and since such nominee was not sent, therefore, the recruitment cannot be treated to be in accordance with the rules, yet, in the facts of this case, the Court cannot be oblivious to the circumstances as also the statutory scheme which obligates the managing committee to conclude the selection proceedings in a given time frame.”
“This is particularly so as unless the teacher is appointed the cause of education itself would suffer. We also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the vacancy was duly notified to the District Basic Education Officer and with his permission the vacancy was published in two newspapers. The Committee of Management proceeded to intimate the officer concerned and made a request to send his nominee. The selection proceedings has to be deferred twice only because a nominee was not sent,” the Bench noted.
The Court explained, “The Managing Committee, therefore, had two options. Either, to have allowed the vacancy to subsist and approach this Court for an appropriate direction or to have proceeded further to make selection, by the majority of members of the selection committee present. In our view much will depend upon the reason which impelled the officer concerned not to send his nominee.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “For the reasons recorded above, we are not persuaded to interfere in the present appeal filed by the State…The special appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: State Of UP & Ors. v. Gunjan Singh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:65115-DB)