STATE OF U P . AND ORS versus SMT. DAMYANTI SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 27-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
.. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v . 
SMT. DAMY ANTI SINGH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 27, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, J.l.l 
Service law : 
U.P. Intemzediate Education Act, 1921 : 
Appointment of Teache~School functioning as upgraded School-Ett-
tit/ement to be made pennanent teacher with consequential benefits-Suit 
.decreed-Confinne~ by High Cowt-on appeal held on the basis of records 
the respondem was working against leave vacancy and her name not found 
in the approved list-Hence she was not duly appointed to the post of 
Teacher-Cowts below misread tile documentary evidence and did not con-
sider the effect of the Division Bench judgment rejecti11g her writ petition 
praying for a direction that she was duly appointed by the Management and 
for payment of a"ec;rs of sa/Qiy. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDJC'TION : Civil Appeal No. 590 of. 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.95 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 1959 of 1991. 
R.C. Verma, S.P. Khera and R.B. Mi~ra for the Appellants. 
Lalita Kohli, C. Siddarth, Manoj K. Misra and Manoj Swarup for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
- G 
Delay condoned, 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High 
Court of Allahabad, made on September 22, 1995 in Second Appeal no. 
H 1959 of 1991. The admitted positio!l is that Mahadeo Prasad Vishwanath 
564 
-( 
~ 
.... 
...,- -
I 
STATEv. SMT.DAMYANTI 
565 
Prasad Girls High Schoo~ Harraiya was functioning as an upgraded school A 
from July 14, 1977. It is the case of the first respondent that she was 
appointed as a teacher and therefore, she is entitled to be permanent 
teacher in the School with consequential benefits as she was regularly 
appointed. The courts below granted the decree which has been, on appeal 
confiimed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.: 
B 
. 
. 
We directed the respondents to produce the record of the returns 
given by the Management with regard to the teachers working in the 
institution after the upgradation w.e.f. July 14, 1977. The records have been 
placed before us. The reco.rds indicate that for the year 1977-78 and 
19778-79, admittedly, the natne of the first respondent does not find place. C 
With regard to 1979-80, it is seen that she was working against a leave 
vacancy. On September 9, 1982, the approval consisting of 9 names in 
respect of the teachers working in the High Court School was given but it 
did not mention the name of the first respondent. This factual position was 
also accepted by the District Judge but be held that she cannot be D . 
penalised for the mistake of the Manage.nent in not sending the name of 
the first respondent. We fail to appreciate the view taken by the District 
Judge and appr-oved by the High Court as correct. The official reports 
reflect the correct state of affairs. Since the approval of the authorities· is 
required under the U.P. lntemJediation Education Ac~ 1921, after. upgrada-
-
tion· of the school w.e.f. July 14, 1977, it would be axiomatic that appoint-
E 
ment of the staff working in the school would get approved by the 
competent authority. Otherwise, the same cannot be recognised and 
treated as regular so as to be entitled to receive aid from the Government 
It is not in dispute that Writ Petition No. 7989/1983 was flied by the 
respondent in the High Court claiming payment of the arrears of the salary. F 
The Regional Jnspectoress of Girls School, Gorakhpur had filed the 
counter-affidavit in the High Court disputing that correctness of h~r status 
as she had been duly appointed by the Management. The Division Bench 
of the High Court by order dated August 9, 1983 dismissed the Writ 
Petition with the observation as under : 
"In view of the averments made in paragraph No.5 and 6 of counter 
affidavit filed on behalf of the Regional Inspectorcss of Girls 
Schools, we find no merit in the writ petition." 
G 
It would, thus, be seen that the contention of the first respondent H 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A that she was duly appointed by the Management was not accepted by the 
High Court. Consequently, the claim for payment of the arrears of salary 
was rejected. In view of the above decision and in view of the records 
placed before us, obviously, the courts below have misread the documen-
tary evidence and did not consider the effect of the Division Bench 
B judgment of the High Court. The single Judge of the H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.