AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Tandon, J.—This petition is another example as to how the orders passed by the writ Court are being deliberately violated and situation is being created by the highest officers of the Education Department namely the Secretary (Secondary Education) and the Director of Education (Secondary) for approving payment of salary to teachers and staff without actually verifying as to when they were appointed and after following what procedure. This Court may refer to the judgment of the Hon''ble Single Judge dated 06.04.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26113 of 2006 to which both the officers were a party. The Hon''ble Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the said judgment recorded that kith and kins of Principal, Manager, teaching, non-teaching staff, employees of District Inspector of Schools'' office were inserted in the list of Staff of the institution for payment of salary after the institution was taken on grant-in-aid list by the State Government with a vested interest to benefit their own men whose names were:
(a) Jay Prakash Rajpoot s/o. Manager of the institution.
(b) Chhote Lal Rajpoot: real nephew of the real brother in-law of the Manager.
(c) Malikhan Singh: real nephew of the Principal.
(d) Dinesh Chandra: son of the Manager.
(e) Rakesh Kumar Katiyar: relative of clerk in the office of the District Inspector of Schools.
(f) Anita: daughter of retired Clerk of the office of the District Inspector of Schools.
Thereafter the Court proceed to direct the Director of Education to not only examine the correctness or otherwise of the relationship noticed above but also see the mode and manner of their appointment. It was provided as follows:
The Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. at Allahabad Camp Officer at Lucknow after calling for entire record from the institution. It shall also be seen as to at what point of time, incumbents in whose favour order had been passed under U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, had been appointed and the way and manner in which they had been appointed. Needless to say that fresh exercise be taken preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is surprising that the Director who was granted three months'' time to undertake the exercise, took three years to do the needful. The findings recorded by the Director of Education in his order dated 10.09.2009 are shocking. The Director in his order after issuing notices to the parties concerned, in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 records that the relationship with the persons concerned as noticed above, could not be established from records. Such approach of the Director practically amounts to abuse of the powers vested in him and an attempt to defrauding the public exchequer by deliberately not recording a finding as to whether the employee concerned was related to the prohibited degree with the management of the institution or not.
What makes the position worst is that the Director despite the specific direction of this Court did not record any finding whatsoever with regard to the procedure adopted in the matter of appointment of teachers and employees who were directed to pay salary under the impugned order. The Director in order to save his skin adopted a smart procedure and instead of passing final orders, as directed by this Court, forwarded the papers to the Secretary, Secondary Education for final orders after recording the aforesaid findings.
It is now that the Secretary comes into the act. He even after noticing the directions of the high Court as per the order dated 06.04.2007 which had been quoted in the order of the Director, deliberately did not consider any of the directions issued by this Court qua the process adopted in the matter of appointment of teachers and staff concerned. He vide order dated 14.02.2011 directed payment of salary to the staff of the institution (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) after removing names of persons and by inducting two new names. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
This Court is surprised as to how the highest officers of the Education Department are acting. While sanctioning payment of salary to the teachers and staff of the institution from State exchequer, absolutely no exercise has been undertaken which could establish that the teachers and staff had been validly appointed, what is worst is that there has been wilful disobedience of the directions issued by the writ Court.
Before any further orders are passed, it would be in the interest of justice that the officers may be afforded an opportunity to explain the facts noticed above.
Put on 06.04.2011.
The Secretary (Secondary Education) and Director of Education (Secondary) shall file their personal affidavits explaining the facts noticed above, by the next date fixed.
Copy of the order may be issued to the learned Standing Counsel by 02.04.2011.