Amar Nath Shukla and Others vs Asstt. District Inspector of Sanskrit Schools and Others

R.H. Zaidi, J.—Petitioners, who are six in number, approached this Court by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying mainly for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the arrears of their salary to them and for direction to the said Respondents to decide the representations made by them.

Petitioners claimed themselves to be teachers of the Sanskrit School known as Laxmi Narain Sanskrit Pathshala, Mokatpur, district Jaunpur, (hereinafter referred to as Pathshala). The Pathshala is said to be affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya. Petitioners claim that the management of Pathshala was superseded and District Inspector of Schools was appointed to manage its affairs. They have pleaded that they were appointed by the District Inspector of Schools on 12.7.79 and since 14.7.79, they have been performing their duties, Le., teaching Sanskrit in the Pathshala. It has also been pleaded that on 20.6.80. their appointments were approved by Vice Chancellor of the aforesaid University, but inspite of approval, their salaries have not been paid to them. Consequently, they have made representations to the District Inspector of Schools and have also approached the Asstt. District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi, but in vain. Since the Respondents did not pay any heed to the requests made by the Petitioners and to the representations filed by them, they have no option, but to approach this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the above noted reliefs.

In compliance of the order passed by this Court, counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents. i.e., District Inspector of Schools controverting the allegations made in the writ petition. in the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the management of Pathshala was vested in its committee of management. Pathshala, which used to receive the grant-in-aid from the Government. in the year 1971, the grant-in-aid of the Pathshala was suspended and Asstt. Inspector of Sanskrit Schools Informed the District Inspector of Schools about the same vide his letter dated 26.4.71. It was also intimated that Addl. Director of Education, U.P. authorised the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to draw the grant-in-aid of the Pathshala from the treasury for disbursing the salaries to the teachers of Pathshala. The letter dated 26.4.71 has been filed as Annexure C. A-l to the counter-affidavit. The said letter is quoted below:

On the basis of aforesaid letter, it has been asserted that the District Inspector of Schools was authorised only to draw the grant-in-aid from the treasury for disbursing the salaries to the teachers of the Pathshala.

It has further been stated in the counter-affidavit that the committee of management of Pathshala was never superseded. It continued to manage and control the affairs of Pathshala. It has further been asserted that the Asstt. District Inspector of Sanskrit Schools, while acting wholly Illegally and in excess of his jurisdiction as well as without following the procedure prescribed for the same, selected seven teachers, i.e., six Petitioners and one more, and sent their names for the approval. The Asstt. District Inspector of Schools is also alleged to have issued the appointment letters to the Petitioners, in which it was specifically stated that the payment of salary will be available when the approval from the department was accorded under the Rules, Le., Sampurnanand Sanskrit University Statute, wherein the procedure of selection has been provided and it has also been provided that the committee of management is the appointing authority of the teachers. The District Inspector of Schools;, thereafter, wrote a letter to Asstt. District Inspector of Sanskrit Pathshala, Varanasi. It was on 3, 9, 79 that Asstt. District Inspector of Sanskrit Schools disapproved the aforesaid appointment of seven teachers. The Headmaster of the Pathshala has, however, procured the approval from the Registrar of University on ad hoc basis vide letter dated 26.2.80, in which the Registrar of the University specifically directed the management of Pathshala to make appointment in accordance with law. Vide letter dated 24.4.80, the Registrar of the University wrote to the Headmaster of Pathshala to terminate the services of the said seven teachers and to pay their salaries from his own resources. Thus according to the Respondents, the appointments of Petitioners were not made by the committee of management, but Asstt. District Inspector of Sanskrit Schools, who had no authority to make appointment nor approval to the said appointments was accorded in accordance with the Rules contained in Sampurnanand Sanskrit University Statute.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The core question Involved in the present case is as to whether the appointments of the Petitioners were valid and were made in accordance with law. Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners has not disputed the fact that the appointing authority under the Rules is the committee of management of the Pathshala. He has, however, asserted that on relevant point of time, the committee of management was under supersession and affairs of Pathshala were being looked after and managed by the Asstt. District Inspector of Sanskrit Schools. Learned Counsel has. however, failed to point out anything from the record to substantiate his plea regarding supersession of the committee of management. On the other hand, from the letter dated 26.4.71, which has been extracted above and is contained as Annexure C. A.-1, it is apparent that the District Inspector of Schools was simply authorised to draw the amount of grant-in-aid from the treasury to disburse the salaries of the teachers and nothing else. in the appointment letters contained in Annexure I to the writ petition, it was stated that the payment of salary will be subject to the approval of the appointment accorded by the department. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the approval was ever granted by the Asstt. District Inspector of Sanskrit Schools. Letter dated 6.3.80 written by the Registrar of the University, contained in Annexure II to the writ petition further shows that the approval could be granted only to the appointments made in accordance with law and not otherwise. It was with a view to avoiding inconvenience to the students, the approval was being granted by the Registrar in ad hoc capacity with further directions to the committee of management to make appointments in accordance with law. From the letter dated 20.4.80, it is evident that the Registrar himself wrote to the Headmaster to terminate the services of the Petitioners and to pay their salaries from his resources. Thus, from the facts stated above, it is apparent that the appointments of the Petitioners were not made validly by the competent authority and the procedure prescribed under law to make appointments was not followed. The said appointments were also not approved by the Inspector of Sanskrit Schools. Mere fact that Petitioners were permitted to continue to work in the Pathshala for several years cannot make their illegal appointments valid and no right accrues to the Petitioners to continue on this basis.

In view to the above discussions, I am constrained to come to the conclusion that the appointments of the Petitioners were invalid from very beginning. They are, therefore, not entitled to any relief prayed for by them. The writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for Petitioners has further contended that for the period the Petitioners have performed their duties as teachers in the Sanskrit Pathshala, they were entitled to their salaries. Since it has already been held that the appointments of the Petitioners were invalid, the Respondents No. 1 to 4 cannot be directed to make the payment of their salaries even If the Petitioners have performed their duties as teachers in Sanskrit Pathshala. The Petitioners are, however, at liberty to recover their salaries from the Headmaster of the Pathshala or from the Asstt. District Inspector of Sanskrit Schools from their personal resources as they were Instrumental in illegally appointing them and not from the amount of grant-in-aid of the Pathshala.

In result, the writ petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.