Vineet Saran - (1.) -The petitioners claim that they were appointed as teachers in the additional Sections of Classes VI, VII, VIII, IX and X opened by the respondent No. 5-School (which is a minority institution under the grant-in-aid scheme of the Government). Since the salary to the teachers who were teaching in the additional sections duly approved/ sanctioned by the District Inspector of Schools was not being paid by the State Government on the ground that it was the responsibility of the management to make payment of salary to such teachers, the petitioners represented to the respondent-authorities and when their claim was not decided, they filed Writ Petition No. 35218 of 2003, which was disposed of on 4.10.2004 with the direction to the Director of Education to decide their representation with regard to payment of salary from the State funds. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Education has passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2005, whereby the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has also been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State-respondents to pay salary and other benefits regularly to the petitioners alongwith arrears from the date of their appointment.
(2.) I have heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri A. K. Dubey for the respondent No. 5 institution and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. It is not disputed that due permission for opening additional sections in the institution was granted by the District Inspector of Schools and it was for teaching such additional classes that the petitioners had been given appointment on 19.12.1991. The Director of Education has declined to make payment of salary to the petitioners under the grant-in-aid scheme on the ground that though opening of new sections may have been approved but the condition imposed therein was that the responsibility for payment of salary to such additional teachers would be that of the Committee of Management. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. State of U. P., 2004 (5) AWC 4911, wherein, in similar facts and circumstances, this Court has framed two issues, namely, (i) whether the State Government is liable for payment of salary to teachers appointed, for additional sections which had been duly recognized and sanctioned by the District Inspector of Schools but additional posts not created by the State Government ; and (ii) whether the selection of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 48290 of 2002, as assistant teachers in the institution in question had been properly made and whether the State Government would be liable to pay their salary. While answering the first question this Court had held that "once a competent authority has approved the opening of new sections in the primary section of the institution, which is admittedly under the grant-in-aid list of the State Government, the liability for payment of salary to teacher appointed on such additional posts would be that of the State Government." Although in the said case while granting approval for opening new sections the District Inspector of Schools had not laid down any condition with regard to non-payment of salary to such additional teachers from the State funds which condition is there in the present case in hand, but the Apex Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration v. Mrs. Rajni Vali, 1999 (3) AWC 96 (FB) : JT 2000 (1) SC 159, has held that even when permission for starting additional classes is granted with condition that no grant-in-aid would be provided for additional staff, the Apex Court has held that the State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges since it is well-settled that imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of the State Administration and in such circumstances the Supreme Court directed the Administration to make payment of salary to teachers appointed to run additional classes.
(3.) AFTER considering the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj, 1999 (2) AWC 962 (FB) : 1999 (1) UPLBEC 1, this Court held that it would the responsibility of the State to make payment of salary to such additional teachers who were appointed to run the approved additional classes. I do not find any reason to differ with the said judgment and as such in the present case also, since the additional classes were opened after due approval of the District Inspector of Schools, the liability for payment of salary to such teachers would be that of the State Government. Now coming to the question as to whether the petitioners were properly appointed as per procedure prescribed, nothing has been stated in the writ petition as to what procedure had been followed by the Committee of Management at the time of appointment of the petitioners. It has merely been stated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that proper procedure has been adopted, which has been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Although learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the appointment of the petitioners was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools inasmuch as a certificate issued on 1.4.2003, by the Committee of Management with regard to the petitioners' teaching in the additional classes was duly counter-signed by the District Inspector of Schools but the document whereby the District Inspector of Schools has counter-signed the said certificate has not been filed alongwith the writ petition. The said question has also not been considered by the Director of Education while deciding the representation of the petitioners. Accordingly, although this Court is of the view that payment of salary to such teachers who were appointed to run additional classes duly approved by the educational authorities would be that of the Government but the liability to make payment would be only to such teachers who have been duly appointed, in accordance with law, after following selection process.;