Everyone human being has the right to education. Education must be free, at least in the primary and fundamental stages: High Court of Allahabad
The Right to education act is an act of parliament proposed on 4 august 2009 which shows and highlights the model of the importance of free and compulsory education to children age group 6-14 in India. The case held by the High court of Allahabad through the learned bench by division bench: In the Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. Hon’ble Jayant Banerji, J. on the matter of Krishna Mohan Tiwari Versus District Inspector Of Schools Allahabad And Another [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. – 20 of 2022 ] dealt with an issue mentioned above.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that one Jai Narain Vishwakarma was Lecturer in Civics who was superannuated on 30.06.1998. Thus, a substantive vacancy occurred on the retirement of the aforesaid Jai Narain Vishwakarma but no requisition was made by the Committee of Management to fill up the post of Lecturer in Civics. The procedure prescribed under the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services and Selection Board Act, 1982 was not followed at all by the Committee of Management and instead the Committee of Management itself advertised the post on 11.04.1998/16.04.1998 and appointed the petitioner on the post of Lecturer, who allegedly joined on 31.08.1998
Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2015 (5) AWC 4719 and submits that in view of the provisions of Section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Committee of Management has the power to make ad-hoc appointments. He also relied upon the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2018 (1) AWC 462.
The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case, the Full Bench in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) has dealt with the situation where the ad-hoc appointment was to be made against a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or in case of death, termination or otherwise, of an incumbent occurring during an educational session. The facts of the present case are that a substantive vacancy was occurred on the retirement of one Jai Narain Vishwakarma on 30.06.1998 and the Committee of Management, without following the statutory provisions of the Act of 1982, made an advertisement on 11.04.1998/16.04.1998 and selected and appointed the petitioner who allegedly joined on 31.08.1998. Thus, the judgment of the Full Bench has no application on the facts of the present case.
Click here to read the judgment
Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra