Tag: #teacher

-Report by Sejal Jethva

The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Rachna Hills and Others this instance, Section 16-FF of the Act and Regulation 17 of the Regulations outlines the process for choosing and appointing heads of institutions and teachers at minority institutions. Although the specific selection process is outlined in Regulation 17, Section 16-FF, subsection (3) of the Act requires that the District Inspector of Schools provide his or her approval before appointing a teacher.

FACTS

Two minority institutions took the lead in the teacher selection process and submitted their requests for DIOS clearance. The Government changed Regulation 17 to include a new selection process before the required permission was given. In order to ensure that the proposal complied with the new method, the DIOS returned it. By submitting writ petitions in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, the institutions contested the DIOS’s decision forcing the Management to abide by the new Rules.

According to the decisions challenged before us, the High Court determined that the selection process was complete and the suggested candidates had a vested right to be appointed after Management sent the names to the DIOS for approval. The High Court also made reference to and relied on the rule that vacancies that occur before rules are amended must be regulated by the rules in effect at the time of the occurrence of the vacancy. We are hearing an appeal from the State of U.P.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

We have maintained that the selection process doesn’t end until the DIOS has given its required clearance. A considered appointment has no place, according to our analysis of the legislative framework and the supporting laws. Additionally, we have made it clear that in light of recent decisions by this Court, the concept used by the High Court in order to apply outdated standards to previous vacancies is neither appropriate to the circumstances of the current cases nor sound legal precedent.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The Respondent-candidates appealed the DIOS’s judgment in question by submitting a writ petition to Allahabad’s High Court of Judicature4. The judgment was overturned and the DIOS was instructed to rethink it by the learned Single Judge in an order dated 07.05.2018 on the grounds that the modified Regulations would not apply because the selection procedure had reached its conclusion.

JUDGMENT

1. In order to evaluate the Respondents’ claims that individuals whose names are submitted to the Management for approval by the DIOS acquire a vested right to be appointed as Teachers, it is important to look at Section 16-FF.

2. Respondents claim that in accordance with Regulation 1815, suggested candidates should be presumed to have been appointed if the DIOS fails to approve them within 15 days following the Management’s proposal.

3. The Division Bench and the High Court’s Single Judge accepted the selected candidates’ argument that the 19 Rules and Regulations in effect at the time the vacancies arose and not the Regulations that would later be amended could only be used to fill the vacancies for the post of a teacher.

4. In light of the law’s unambiguous formulation, we have no qualms about rejecting the learned counsels for the respondents’ argument that the vacancies that existed before the alteration to Regulation 17 of Chapter II must be regulated by unaltered norms.

5. Civil Appeal No. 1882 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 1883 of 2023, and Civil Appeal No. 1884 of 2023 are all accepted for the reasons mentioned above. As a result, the decisions rendered by the High Court of Judicature in Allahabad on January 16, 2019, January 16, 2019, and January 18, 2019, in the cases of Special Appeal Defective No. 42 of 2019 and Writ Appeal No. 27341 of 2018 and Special Appeal Defective No. 38 of 2019, respectively, are annulled.

6. No cost-related order.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3LAs0Y3

-Report by

The present case concerns a writ petition filed by the wife of a deceased physical education
teacher seeking the release of outstanding dues payable to her late husband on account of pay
revision under the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations. The petitioner’s
husband was the sole bread earner of the family, and all his legal heirs were dependent on
him. The petitioner alleged that despite repeated requests, the school had not released the
arrears of salary and allowances owed to her husband. The respondents, including the school
and the Directorate of Education, did not dispute the petitioner’s claim to the outstanding dues
payable to her husband. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the school to
calculate and disburse the outstanding dues to the petitioner within four weeks from the date
of the order.

Facts:

The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the release of outstanding dues
payable to her late husband, who was working as a Physical Education Teacher at the National
Public School for over 30 years. Her husband died due to fatal injuries sustained in an
accident on 10.08.2022, leaving behind the petitioner and his legal heirs, who were dependent
on him. The petitioner’s grievance was that the school had not granted the benefits of pay
revision under the 7th Pay Commission (CPC) and released the arrears of salary and allowances
of her late husband.

Issue:

The issue raised in the present writ petition was the non-grant of benefits of pay revision
under 7th CPC and the release of arrears of salary and allowances of the petitioner’s late
husband by the school.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

The petitioner in this case, the wife of a deceased physical education teacher, contended that
her husband was entitled to receive the benefits of pay revision under the 7th Central Pay
Commission (CPC) recommendations, as directed by circulars issued by the Directorate of
Education. She alleged that despite repeated requests from her son, the school had not
released the arrears of salary and allowances owed to her husband, who was the sole bread
earner of the family.

Respondent’s Contentions:

On the other hand, the respondents, including the school and the Directorate of Education,
did not dispute the petitioner’s claim to the outstanding dues payable to her husband.
However, they requested the petitioner to provide any additional information or documents
required by the school to release the payments. They also argued that the grant of benefits of
pay revisions under the Central Pay Commissions’ Recommendations and the consequent
fixation of pay scales etc. of employees of recognized private schools at par with employees
of the corresponding status in schools run by Appropriate Authority, by virtue of provisions of
Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, was not in dispute, citing relevant court
judgments.

Judgment:

The court allowed the writ petition and recorded the assurance given on behalf of
Respondents No.1 to 3 that all outstanding dues payable to the petitioner’s husband on
account of pay revision under the 7th CPC shall be released within four weeks from the date of
the judgment. The court also directed that the calculations of the amounts disbursed to the
petitioner shall be furnished to her to enable her to ascertain if anything further remains to be
paid. In case the petitioner finds that any balance amounts are payable, she is at liberty to
approach the school management in this regard and, in case of any surviving grievance, she
may take recourse to remedies available to her in accordance with the law. The court disposed of
the writ petition in the aforesaid terms.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Tbtj2R