COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF JANTA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. RAM PRAKASH YADAV
LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-268
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 03,2012

Committee Of Management Of Janta Higher Secondary School Appellant
VERSUS
Ram Prakash Yadav Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In both the aforesaid Second Appeals, the order dated 28.10.1999, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Fatehgarh, Farrukkhabad, has been challenged. Since in both the Appeals, the same order is under challenge and the questions involved are the same, therefore, both the Appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Ram Prakash Yadav filed a suit being Suit No. 298 of 1990 for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the committee of management from interfering in his work being carried on as a Teacher of the College. The claim of the plaintiff was that he has been appointed as an Assistant Teacher against the vacancy occurred on account of transfer of one Jagdish Chandra Tiwari and an appointment letter has been issued and in pursuance thereof he joined the College as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade on adhoc basis on 30th January, 1985. After his joining, he started discharging his duties as an Assistant Teacher, but was not paid salary for the same, though the process for approval was initiated by the Management of the College and the documents for the same have also been sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad and since the payment of salary was not made to him, he filed the suit against the committee of management as well as against the State of U.P. and District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad for mandatory injunction to the State of U.P. and the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad to issue an order of approval to his appointment and further a mandatory injunction was also requested against the State of U.P. and the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad as well as against the committee of management of the College to ensure the payment of salary. The plaintiff also sought order of prohibitory injunction against the committee of management of the College restraining to interfere with the working of the plaintiff.
(3.) The committee of management filed the written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable. The averments made in Paragraph nos. 1 to 12 have been denied. As an additional plea, it was stated that Jagdish Chandra Tiwari was never appointed as a teacher in Janta Higher Secondary School nor he ever submitted his resignation in the aforesaid institution. There was no post of Jagdish Chandra Tiwari. In fact, Jagdish Chandra Tiwari was not a regular teacher in the school nor his appointment was made in the institution by its managing committee. He was appointed as an extension teacher under the scheme of the State Government. Salary of Jagdish Chandra Tiwari was also paid by the State Government. Vide order dated 25th June, 1982, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad, Jagdish Chandra Tiwari was transferred from the institution to elsewhere. Thus, on account of the transfer of Jagdish Chandra Tiwari no post became vacant and as such appointment of the plaintiff in his place did not arise. It has also been stated that the alleged appointment order dated 28th January, 1985 of the plaintiff is incorrect and the alleged appointment letter is a forged document which the plaintiff got prepared in collusion with some members of the staff of the institution. It has further been pleaded that the plaintiff never joined the services in the institution nor the manager of the institution, defendant no.3, submitted any paper to the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukkhabad on 2nd February, 1985 or on any other date for the purposes of making the payment of salary to the plaintiff out of Joint Salary Account of the institution nor the defendant no.3 submitted any salary bill of the plaintiff for payment of salary. The manager of the institution did not send any letter dated 15th March, 1989 to the District Inspector of Schools. The alleged letter dated 15th March, 1989, if any, also is a forged document, which has been prepared by the plaintiff in collusion with some members of the staff College. The allegation of the plaintiff that he has been continuously working as an Assistant Teacher has also been denied.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.