UP Recognised Basic School Rules: Allahabad HC Upholds Deemed Approval Of Docs Submitted By Appointee If No Response From Authority Within 30 Days

The Allahabad High Court, while examining the case of appointment of a principal, has held that if documents sent for approval to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) are not approved within a period of 30 days, then as per Rule 10 of the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules, 1978, they shall be held to have been approved.

“It has not been disputed that the documents were sent for approval and after a lapse of 30 days, if no communication has been received, then as per the Rule 10(5)(iii) of Rules, 1978, it will be deemed that the approval has been granted,” held Justice Piyush Agarwal.

Case Background

Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Dr. Ambedkar Junior High School, Kaushambi by the District Basic Education Officer by order dated 17.10.1995. She worked in the said post for 19 years. In 2016, the Ram Kali Balika Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Allahabad advertised vacancies for a number of positions, the post of the principal being one of them. Petitioner, meeting the requisite criteria, applied for the same.

The District Basic Education Officer by letter dated 28.07.2016, nominated the department representatives, and the selection process was completed. Three candidates, including the petitioner, were shortlisted for the post of the principal. On 02.06.2017, the management forwarded a letter for grant of approval. Despite the lapse of a month, the matter remained pending. However, in light of Rule 10 of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978, the petitioner was issued an approval for appointment.

On 18.07.2017, an appointment letter was issued to petitioner, requiring her to join within a period of 15 days. The petitioner joined the post of principal on 25.07.2017 and discharged her duties accordingly. However, on not being paid any salary, she filed a writ petition against the same where the petitioner was directed to make a representation expressing her grievances before the District Basic Education Officer. Subsequently, an order was passed non-suiting the petitioner on ground of experience certificate and approval by BSA not on record, as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 1978. Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court.

Counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner had submitted all the required documents along with an experience certificate of 19 years, showing that she worked as an Assistant Teacher in the institution. It was submitted that the experience certificate of the petitioner was manipulated by the present Manager, one 'Akash Singh', on the basis of which the impugned order was passed.

Further, petitioner contended that it was not at all the case of the respondents that she did not possess the required qualification for the post of principal. It was submitted that all the documents submitted by the petitioner bore her signature except for the experience certificate that was not given by her. Additionally, it was pointed out by counsel for petitioner that the alleged experience certificate was signed by one 'Shakuntala Gupta', who is placed at Serial No.2 in the selected list of candidates for the post of principal.

Per Contra, counsel for the State argued that the appointment was rejected on grounds that there was no approval which established the said appointment of the petitioner to the post of the principal. Further, it was submitted that the experience certificate of the petitioner was found to be incorrect and thus the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the impugned order.

Additionally, counsel for other respondents submitted that the experience certificate of the Assistant Teacher was not of the petitioner but of one 'Smt. Savitri Devi' of the Balika Junior High School, Allahabad. It was their contention that basis this, it was incorrect on the part of the petitioner to claim that she had an experience certificate showing that she had worked for a period of 19 years in Dr. Ambedkar Junior High School, Kaushambi.

High Court Verdict

The Court held that in terms of Rule 10 of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Teachers) Rules, 1978, the BSA was required to either pass an appropriate order within the period of 30 days, granting approval, or return the papers for removing defects, if any, which in the present case, the BSA had failed to do.

Further, the Court held that since it was not disputed that the documents were sent for approval, after a lapse of 30 days, if no communication was received, then as per Rule 10 (5) (iii) of Rules, 1978, it would be held that the approval had been granted.

The Court relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Satendra Mani Dubey v. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti and 3 Ors., wherein it was observed that after a lapse of 30 days from the date of submission of documents for approval, the approval shall be understood to have been made.

Regarding the authenticity of the experience certificate filed in support of the claim of the petitioner, the Court summoned the original record and held that all the documents submitted by the petitioner were all signed by her except for the experience certificate. The Court stated that this did cast a doubt about the genuineness of the said document.

Respondent had no specific rebuttal to the contention of the petitioner that the Experience Certificate was never submitted by the petitioner and that all the documents that were submitted by her, contained her signature. The Court observed that it was peculiar on part of the respondents to accept a document that did not bear the signature of the petitioner.

“The said fact surprised the Court also as to why and under what circumstance, the documents were accepted by the respondent without verifying the signature on the same. Once the documents have been submitted by the petitioner in support of her candidature, which were duly signed except the Experience Certificate (at Page No. 41 of the original record), why have the respondents accepted the same, which shows the mala-fide intention of the respondents,” stated the Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the respondents to verify the Experience Certificate within a month's time. It was held that if the document was found to be genuine, the petitioner was to be permitted to continue on the post of Principal. On this condition, the Court further directed that the petitioner shall be paid her arrears of salary and continue to receive her monthly pay as well.

Case Title: Smt. Kavita Singh v. State of U.P. And 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393 [WRIT - A No. - 16849 of 2019]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393

Click Here To Read/Download Order