DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. versus GAJADHAR PRASAD VERMA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 21-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. 
v. 
" 
GAJADHAR PRASAD VERMA 
NOVEMBER21, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of 
Teachers and Other Employees) Act, I 97 I: 
Section 9-Clerk appointed in leave vacancy-Resolution of Managing 
Committee to continue his service uninterruptedly even after vacancy 
ceased to exists-Whether School could claim reimbursement of salary of 
such Clerkfrom Government-Held: No. 
A 
B . 
c 
The respondent came to be appointed in a leave vacancy. By a D 
resolution the Managing Committee resolved that the service of the 
respondent would be continued uninterruptedly, even in the absence of 
leave vacancy. 
The question involved in this appeal was whether the school of the 
respondent could claim reimbursement of the salary of such clerk from E 
the Government. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1 The U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges 
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act regulates F 
the payment of the salary by the Government. Section 9 provides that 
no institution shall create a new post of teacher or other employee 
except with the previous approval of the Director or such oftic'er as · 
may be empowered in that behalf by the Director. Admittedly, no such 
steps have been taken by the Management. Such prior approval of the 
Director or the empowered officer is a condition precedent and G 
mandatory, and government had before it the relevant data of the posts 
for which the grant of aid was sanctioned. To make the government 
reimburse the salary of an additional teacher or an employee, the 
government should have similar relevant material and data to have it 
duly verified and decision taken to grant sanction of the additional 
post. The inspecting and reporting officers are enjoined to make H 
617 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. S S.C.R 
A 
personal inspection and submit the report of the existing correct facts. 
B 
The dereliction of duty. or incorrect or false reports would be 
misconduct entailing them to disciplinary action for dismissal from the 
post held by them. Therefore, the failure to obtain· prior approval 
disentitles the Management to obtain reimbursement of the salary of 
such teacher or other employee. (619 A-E) 
1.2 The Management has to bear the expenditure from its resourc-
es without claiming any reimbursement from the government. The 
High Court has committed grievous error of law in not adverting to 
this crucial question and allowing the writ petition directing the 
government to create the post and to make the payment of the salary 
C 
etc. (619 H, 620 A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 9517 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.1992 of the Allahabad High 
D 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 2669of1990. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Ms. Rachna Gupta for R.B. Misra for the Appellants. 
Pramod Swarup for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Allahabad 
High Court in CMWP No. 2669/90 dated 11.11.1992. The admitted facts 
are:that'one Hariram Yadav, while working as clerk, went on leave. In the 
leave vacancy, the respondent came to be appointed till Hariram Yadav 
joined the duty. By resolution dated 28.12.1986, the Managing Committee 
resolved that even after Hariram Yadav joins duty on 1.5.87, the service of 
the respondent would be continued uninterruptedly. It is stated in the 
counter affidavit filed in this Court that the approval of the District 
Inspector of Schools was also obtained in that behalf. But no supporting 
material has been placed before us. The valid appointment of the non-
teaching staff of a private aided institution to be valid, should be in 
accordance with the relevant rules. Since the.validity of the appointment of 
the additional clerk is not in issue, we need not deal with the matter in 
depth. 
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION v. G. P. VERMA 
619 
Be that as it may, the crucial question is whether the school of the A 
respondent can claim reimbursement of the salary of such clerk from the 
Government? The U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment 
of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act 24of1971 (for short 'the 
Act'), regulates the payment of the salary by the Government. Section 9 is 
relevant in that behalf. It provides that no institution shall c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.