1. Heard Sri Paavan Awasthi and Sri Bhanu Bajpai, learned counsels for the petitioner, and Sri Piyush Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for all the respondents.
2. Instant petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the government order dated 11.05.2022 issued by respondent no.1 which is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Basic Education Officer to take a decision in respect of representation dated 22.06.2023 for approval of filling vacant posts in Kranti Vidya Mandir within a fixed period of time as may be determined by this Court."
3. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts set forth by the learned counsels for the petitioner are that there is a society namely Kranti Vidya Mandir which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The society established a school namely Kranti Vidya Mandir (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution') and the District Education Officer Lucknow had granted recognition to the Institution vide order dated 06.11.1973. The Institution has also been included in the list of schools for whom the recurring grant has been approved and is payable by the Department of Social Welfare Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 31.03.1989.
4. The petitioner is now aggrieved by the Government Order dated 11.05.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby various restrictions have been imposed. Of the few restrictions that have been imposed by the Government Order are that the selection, appointment and financial approval for new teachers have been completely stopped; the teachers have been required to be transferred from one Institution to other in order to make good the short fall under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Right of Children Free & Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. Certain other directions have also been issued by the said Government Order.
5. The argument of learned counsels for the petitioner is that the appointment of teachers in the Institution is done under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment & Conditions of Service for Teachers & other conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1975). Rule 9 of the Rules 1975 pertains to appointment of the teachers and procedure for appointment.
6. The contention is that once the appointment and other service conditions of the teachers working in the Institution are governed by the Rules, 1975 consequently the Government Order dated 11.05.2022 which contains the restrictions as indicated above is an order which has been passed patently without jurisdiction and hence the order impugned merits to be quashed on this ground alone.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has justified the order impugned dated 11.05.2022 on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit by contending that the said Government Order has been passed for the purpose of adjustment of the teachers which would help in providing quality education to the students as well as fulfilling the government's intention of curbing wastage of government funds. The said Government Order has also been issued in order to save the assistant teachers from the discrepancy arising from the removal from service of the Assistant teachers working in low student number/studentless schools run on grant in aid by the department or by stopping the salary grant given by the department and would prove more beneficial for the teachers. It is further contended that the appointment of teachers which is done by the management under the Rules, 1975 duly gets validated after the financial and administrative approval by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department. However, learned Standing Counsel has been unable to indicate the power under which the complete stoppage has been done pertaining to the selection, appointment and financial approval of the teachers and transfer of teachers from one Institution to other in terms of the Government Order dated 11.05.2022 and the provision under which the aforesaid Government Order has been issued more particularly when Rules, 1975 do not confer any such power on the State Government to issue such a Government Order.
8. Considering the aforesaid more particularly when the respondents either through their arguments or the averments contained in the counter affidavit have failed to justify the power or authority under which the Government Order dated 11.05.2022 has been passed consequently Court has no option but to quash the order impugned dated 11.05.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to writ petition.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 11.05.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. Consequences to follow.
10. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order if so required in accordance with law.
