http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. DAMYANTI SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1997 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.t. Nanavati      R.C. Verma,  S.P. Khera  and R.B.  Misra, Advs. for the appellants.      Lalita Kohli,  C. Siddarth,  Majoh M.  Misra and  Manoj Swarup, Advs. for the Respondents.                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      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.1959  of 1991. The admitted position is that Mahadeo  Prasad Vishwanath  Prasad  Girls  High  School Harraiya was functioning as an upgraded school 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  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,  confirmed by  the  High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      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 record have been placed before us. The records  indicate that for the year 1977-78 and 1978-79, admittedly, the  name of  the first respondent does not find place. 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 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 he held that she cannot be  penaalised for  the mistake  of the Management in not sending  the name  of the  first respondent.  We fail to appreciate the view taken by the District Judge and approved by the  High Court  as correct. The official reports reflect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the correct  state of  affairs. Since  the approval  of  the authorities  is  required  under  the]  U.P.  Intermediation Education Act,  1921, after upgradation of the school w.e.f. July 14, 1977, it would be axiomatic that appointment of the staff working  in the  school  would  get  approved  by  the competent  authority.   Otherwise,  the   same   cannot   be recognised and  treated as  regular go  as to be entitled to receive aid  from the  Government. It is not is dispute that Writ Petition No.798/1983 was filed by the respondent in the High Court  claiming payment  of the  arrears of the salary. The Regional Inspectors of Girls School, Gorakhpur had filed the counter-affidavit  in  the  High  Court  disputing  that correctness of  her 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   Inspectors    of   Girls      Schools, we  find no  merit in  the      writ petition."      It would,  thus, be  seen that  the] contention  of the first  respondent   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 documentary  evidence and did not consider the effect of the Division  Bench 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 as well as High Court judgment stand set aside. The suit stands dismissed. No costs.