C/M Shree Banhwa Baba Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Ekdalla vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel.

Counsel for the petitioner states that Shree Banhwa Baba Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ambedkar Nagar was given permanent recognition on 31.3.1981 on the basis of recommendation granted by the District Level Recognition Committee on 1st July, 1980 upto the level of Junior High School. When the strength of students increased manifolds and the education of the students was adversely affected due to shortage of teachers, the committee of management passed resolution for sanction of additional posts and made appropriate application to the authorities concerned but no action was taken.

When the grievance of the petitioner for sanction of 3 posts of teacher keeping in view the additional section strength of the students of the institution was not suitably redressed, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 2102(MS) of 2006 and this court vide order dated 27.4.2006, directed for passing speaking and reasoned order.

Later on, the State Government rejected the claim of the petitioner sanctioning the posts on the basis that the Government has imposed ban vide Government Order dated 31.5.1999.

The contention of the petitioner''s Counsel is that for opening new additional sections in classes 6th and 7th, permissions were granted on the recommendation of the Regional Inspector and the Additional Sub Inspector of Schools on 11.3.1988 and the District Basic Education Officer has strongly recommended the matter to sanction the required posts on 28.5.1999. Therefore, the Government order dated 31.5.1999 is not applicable.

I find force in the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner. In the impugned order dated 19.6.2009 passed by the opposite party No. 2 it has been observed that a ban has been imposed vide Government Order dated 31.5.2009 overlooking the material fact that the permission to open two new Sections in the School were already granted in the year 1980, 1984 as well as in the year 1985 by the Comeptent Authority. Thus, the opposite parties remained idle for a long time and now they have come with the stand that the posts could not be created on account of ban imposed by the State Government. When the concerned authorities after examining each and every aspect has recommended for additional posts, there was no occasion for denying the same on the ground of ban at a belated stage. Moreover, restrospectivity cannot be attached to such a government Order.

It may be added that the law is well settled that the demand for creation of posts should be considered and decided on merits rather than the technicalities. In Lal Bahadur Shastri S. Jr. High School and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , the Apex Court has held that the request of additional posts cannot be rejected on the ground of ban imposed on creation of additional posts.

For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 19.6.2009 passed by the Director, Basic Education is hereby quashed. The Director, Basic Education is directed to reconsider the creation of teaching and non-teaching staff in light of the observations made hereinabove and the relevant government orders [prescribing norms and standard for creation of posts]. This exercise shall be done within a period of three months.