Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Nisheeth Yadav for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents no.1 to 4 and Sri P.K. Dwivedi, who has entered appearance by filing a caveat on behalf of one Mohd. Arif, the complainant as an intervenor. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit.
(2.) National Inter College, Mohammadabad Gohna, Mau is a recognised minority institution. It is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short 'the Act'). It is not in dispute between the parties that the institution was accorded minority status by a specific order issued by Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. dated 5.3.1995. The institution is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The petitioner applied for selection as assistant teacher in the institution in pursuance of an advertisement dated 4.5.2016. The Selection Committee constituted for the said purpose interviewed eleven candidates and thereafter, declared the petitioner and one Madhubala as selected. The petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 19.5.2016. The Management forwarded the entire record to District Inspector of Schools for obtaining approval under Section 16-FF of the Act. The District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 24.5.2016, recommended for payment of salary from the date the petitioner starts functioning on the post. According to the petitioner, he was paid salary in pursuance of the said order till the month of April 2017. It seems that the intervenor herein filed a complaint dated 14.5.2017 before Principal Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Lucknow alleging interalia, that father of the petitioner was member of the Committee of Management of the institution and consequently, his appointment was invalid. The Special Secretary, Government of U.P. by letter dated 19.5.2017 directed District Magistrate to get an enquiry made into the complaint made by Mohd. Arif. The order further directs that until the enquiry is completed, salary of the petitioner and Madhubala, the other candidate recruited, be not paid to them. The District Magistrate authorised City Magistrate to hold enquiry into the complaint. The City Magistrate held an enquiry, followed by a report dated 5.7.2017, in which he found that the father of the petitioner submitted his resignation on 14.4.2016 and which was accepted in the meeting of the Committee of Management. He opined that there does not appear any violation of Regulation 20 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act. The District Magistrate forwarded the report to the State Government by communication dated 13.7.2017. On 19.9.2017, the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. again sent a communication to District Inspector of Schools requiring him to furnish information/clarification on the points, viz, (I) whether proper notice was given to the members of the Committee of Management regarding holding of meeting of the Management for considering resignation of Khurshid Alam and whether the said notice or agenda was valid or not; (ii) the details of the newspapers in which the vacancies were advertised; and (iii) about the details of candidates who appeared for selection and the manner of awarding marks. On 14.7.2017, the District Inspector of Schools directed the Manager of the institution not to disburse salary to the petitioner and the other teacher, as enquiry was in progress. On 6.10.2017, the District Inspector of Schools submitted a detailed reply in response to the query made by the State Government. He specifically clarified in his report, after examining the original records, that Khurshid Alam, father of the petitioner submitted resignation on 14.4.2016 and on the same date, the Manager gave notice to the office bearers and on 17.4.2016, the Committee of Management in its meeting accepted the resignation. On the second aspect, the District Inspector of Schools clarified that one post had fallen vacant on account of promotion of an assistant teacher on 18.11.2014 and the other one on 29.4.2016 also on account of promotion of the incumbent working on the said post to the post of lecturer. The advertisement for selection against the two vacant posts was made in newspapers Pioneer (English) and Jan Morcha (Hindi) dated 4.5.2016. Eleven candidates applied and the Selection Committee, on basis of quality point marks and educational qualifications, selected Madhubala and the petitioner.
(3.) On 12.7.2018, the Secretary, Government of U.P. in a communication sent to Director of Education (Madhyamik) directed for initiating proceedings as per Rules for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner and Smt. Madhubala. It was observed in the said communication that from the information obtained and the material placed before the State Government, it transpired that in the interview, the petitioner and Madhubala had been awarded considerably higher marks as compared to other candidates and it creates doubt about the genuineness of the selection process. Based on the aforesaid communication, the Additional Director of Education on 9.8.2018, without holding any enquiry himself, directed for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner and Madhubala. It was followed by a similar direction by Joint Director of Education to District Inspector of Schools vide communication dated 24.8.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 12.7.2018, 9.8.2018 and 24.8.2018 and a mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner.;