Case Note & Summary
This was an appeal by special leave filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated September 22, 1995 in Second Appeal No.1959 of 1991. The dispute concerned the claim of the first respondent, Smt. Damyanti Singh, that she was appointed as a teacher in Mahadeo Prasad Vishwanath Prasad Girls High School Harraiya, which had been upgraded with effect from July 14, 1977, and that she was entitled to be treated as a permanent teacher with consequential benefits. The State contested the claim on the ground that her appointment had not been approved by the competent authority under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit, holding that the first respondent could not be penalised for the management's failure to include her name in the list sent for approval. The High Court confirmed this in second appeal. However, records produced before the Supreme Court showed that for the academic years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the first respondent's name did not appear among teachers; for 1979-80, she worked only against a leave vacancy; and the approval granted on September 9, 1982 in respect of nine teachers did not include her. Additionally, the first respondent had earlier filed Writ Petition No.798/1983 before the High Court claiming salary arrears, but a Division Bench dismissed that petition on August 9, 1983, observing that the counter-affidavit of the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools disputed her status and that the petition had no merit. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the first respondent was duly appointed as a teacher and entitled to permanent status and consequential benefits, and whether the lower courts erred in ignoring mandatory approval requirements and the binding effect of the earlier Division Bench judgment. The State argued that approval was mandatory and that official records and the prior judicial determination conclusively showed that the first respondent was not duly appointed. The respondent contended that she had been duly appointed and that the management's mistake should not deprive her of benefits. The Supreme Court noted that approval of the authorities was required after upgradation and that without such approval, appointments could not be recognised or treated as regular for receipt of government aid. The Court rejected the reasoning of the District Judge that the respondent could not be penalised for the management's mistake, stating that official reports reflected the correct state of affairs. It also pointed out that the Division Bench order of August 9, 1983 had already rejected the respondent's claim of due appointment, and the single Judge in second appeal had failed to consider that judgment on the erroneous ground that it was a finding of fact. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had misread the documentary evidence and did not consider the effect of the Division Bench judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts and the High Court, and dismissed the suit, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Teacher Appointment and Regularisation - Mandatory Approval - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - The respondent teacher claimed permanency in an upgraded school but her name was absent from approved lists and she had worked only against leave vacancy - Held that absence of approval by competent authority vitiated her claim to regular appointment and salary aid; lower courts erred in granting decree despite this. (Paras 1-2) B) Evidence - Official Records and Prior Judicial Determination - Binding Effect - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Supreme Court found that official reports reflected correct state of affairs and the earlier Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No.798/1983 had rejected the respondent's claim of due appointment - Held that lower courts misread documentary evidence and failed to consider the effect of the Division Bench judgment, requiring reversal. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent was duly appointed as a teacher and entitled to permanent status and consequential benefits; whether courts below erred in ignoring mandatory approval and prior Division Bench judgment
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; decrees of courts below and High Court judgment set aside; suit dismissed; no costs.
Law Points
- Approval by competent authority under U.P. Intermediate Education Act
- 1921 mandatory for regularisation
- official records are reliable evidence
- prior judicial determination binding
- lower courts misread evidence
