Holding

The respondent was not duly appointed as a regular teacher; the lower courts' decree is set aside and the suit dismissed.

Summary

The appeal arose from a dispute over the appointment of Smt. Damyanti Singh as a teacher in Mahadeo Prasad Girls High School, which had been upgraded on July 14, 1977. The respondent claimed she was regularly appointed and therefore entitled to permanent status and arrears of salary under the U.P. Intermediary Education Act, 1921. The records showed that her name did not appear in the approved list of teachers for the years 1977‑78, 1978‑79, and 1982, and that she was only working against a leave vacancy in 1979‑80. The lower courts, relying on a misreading of the documentary evidence, held that she was duly appointed and granted her relief. The Supreme Court examined the official returns and concluded that without the required approval of the competent authority, her appointment could not be deemed regular, and therefore the lower courts erred. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the decree of the lower courts and the High Court judgment were set aside, and the suit was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent was duly appointed as a regular teacher after the school's upgradation under the U.P. Intermediary Education Act, 1921.
Whether the respondent is entitled to arrears of salary and other consequential benefits.

Subjects

appointmentpermanent teacherarrears of salaryschool upgradationservice lawU.P. Intermediary Education Actregularisationgovernment aid

Judgment

-(

A STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ~
v.
..
SMT. DAMYANTI SINGH AND ORS.

JANUARY 27, 1997

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, J.l.l

Service law : ....

U.P. Intemzediate Education Act, 1921 :

c 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
D 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.
E 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.
F
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
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
I
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 :
G
"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."

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 High Court did not
advert to the effect of the judgment at all on the ground that it was a finding
of fact and came to the conclusion that the first respondent was duly
appointed to the post of teacher.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The decree of the courts below
C as well as High Court judgment stand set aside. The suit stands dismissed.
No costs.

G.N. Appeal aUowed.

.~·