- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Distt. Basic Education Officer v. Dhananjai Kumar Shukla
Factual and Procedural Background
The post of Headmaster at Janta Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newada Khurd Kalan, Etawah became vacant. An advertisement was issued by the Manager of the school, and Respondent 1 (the Manager’s son) applied. On 18-8-1998 the Manager sought approval from the District Education Officer for his son’s appointment. Two days later, the Manager went on medical leave and handed charge to a Deputy Manager. Respondent 1 was then recommended by the Selection Committee and appointed on an ad hoc basis.
Salary was not released, prompting Respondent 1 to file Writ Petition No. 24957 of 1999 before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court directed payment of salary and continuation in service. A special appeal temporarily vacated that order, but ultimately the writ petition was allowed ex parte because the appellant authorities filed no counter-affidavit. Applications to recall the decision and a further special appeal were dismissed. The appellant (State/education authorities) then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Respondent 1’s appointment as Headmaster was null and void under Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, which disqualifies persons related to any member of the management.
- Whether the High Court could grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution when the underlying appointment was allegedly contrary to mandatory statutory provisions.
- Whether the absence of a counter-affidavit by the appellant compelled the High Court to treat the factual assertions in the writ petition as admitted under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Respondent 1’s appointment violated Rule 6 because he was the son of the Manager, rendering the appointment a legal nullity.
- An appointment made in violation of mandatory rules cannot be validated merely because the authorities failed to file a counter-affidavit in the High Court.
Respondents' Arguments
- The questions now raised before the Supreme Court were not argued in the High Court and therefore should not be entertained.
- The competent educational authority had approved Respondent 1’s appointment, justifying the High Court’s order.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court could proceed ex parte but emphasized that even in the absence of a counter-affidavit, courts are not obliged to grant relief contrary to law. The Court noted the following:
- The familial relationship between Respondent 1 and the Manager (father and son) was undisputed, directly triggering the disqualification under Rule 6.
- The Manager’s temporary medical leave did not remove him from the management; the leave was found to be a device to evade the statutory prohibition, amounting to “fraud on the administration.”
- Order 8 Rule 5 CPC concerns admissions of fact, not questions of law. The legality of the appointment was a pure question of law that could be examined even without pleadings from the appellant.
- Rules of pleading cannot override mandatory statutory provisions; an illegality cannot be perpetuated by judicial order.
Consequently, the Court held that Respondent 1’s appointment was void ab initio, and the High Court erred in directing his continuation and salary payment.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court judgments set aside; Writ Petition dismissed.
Respondent 1 cannot continue as Headmaster, and no salary is payable on the basis of the void appointment. The decision reinforces that courts exercising writ jurisdiction cannot validate appointments made in breach of mandatory statutory rules, even when procedural defaults (such as failure to file a counter-affidavit) occur. No costs were awarded.
S.B Sinha, J.— Leave granted.
2. Respondent 1 was appointed as a Headmaster in a recognised school. Recruitment to the post of Headmaster concededly is governed by the statutory rules framed under the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. Rule 6 of the said Rules reads:
“6. Disqualification.—(1) No person who is related to any member of the management shall be appointed as Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a recognised school.
(2) For the purposes of this rule, a person shall be deemed to be related if he is related to such member in any one of the following ways, namely—
(i) Father or mother;
(ii) Grandfather, grandmother;
(iii) Father-in-law, mother-in-law;
(iv) Uncle, aunt, maternal uncle, maternal aunt;
(v) Son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law;
(vi) Brother, sister;
(vii) Grandson, granddaughter;
(viii) Husband, wife;
(ix) Nephew, niece;
(x) Cousin;
(xi) Wife's brother, or wife's sister, wife's brother's wife, sister's husband;
(xii) Brother's or cousin's wife.”
3. The post of Headmaster inter alia fell vacant in Janta Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newada Khurd Kalan, Etawah. An advertisement therefor was issued by the Manager of the said school. In purported response to the said advertisement Respondent 1 filed an application before the Manager of the school praying for his appointment. The Manager by a letter dated 18-8-1998 asked for approval thereof from the District Education Officer, Etawah.
4. It appears the father of Respondent 1, who was the Manager of the said school on the relevant date, sought for leave from the President of the Managing Committee of the said school stating:
“Respectfully it is submitted that there appears to be unavoidable pain in the knee of the applicant due to which he is facing a lot of difficulty in moving.
Unless the applicant completely becomes healthy from the physical point of view till then Shri Om Narain Tiwari, Deputy Manager will take the charge and responsibility of the post of Manager. After getting alright, the applicant will again assume the charge of the post of the Manager and will do the work; approximately two months' time can be taken for the applicant becoming healthy.”
5. He handed over charge to one Om Narain Tiwari on 21-8-1998. Respondent 1 thereafter was recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee and was appointed in terms thereof on ad hoc basis.
6. Inter alia on the premise that despite such appointment Respondent 1 was not paid his salary, he filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court which was marked as Writ Petition No. 24957 of 1999. By an order dated 16-6-1999 the High Court directed the appellant to continue Respondent 1 on the said post as also pay his due salary.
7. A special appeal was filed thereagainst and the said interim order was vacated.
8. For the reasons best known to the authorities of the appellant, however, no counter-affidavit was filed in the writ petition. The said writ petition was, therefore, allowed. Thereafter, an application for recalling of the said order was filed which was also dismissed. A special appeal thereagainst has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court opining that as the appellant did not file any counter-affidavit, the principles of Order 8 Rule 5 CPC would apply and thus all the statements made in the writ petition would be deemed to have been admitted.
9. Mr Shrish Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that in view of the fact that the respondent was appointed contrary to the provisions of the Rules, the same being a nullity, the impugned judgments are wholly unsustainable.
10. Dr. J.N Dubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that not only the questions raised in the special leave petition were not raised before the High Court, but also in view of the fact that appropriate authority has granted approval to the appointment of Respondent 1, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with.
11. Relationship between Anand Kand Shukla and the respondent is not in dispute being father and son. It also stands unrebutted that Anand Kand Shukla went on leave at the relevant point of time on the ground that he was having pain in the knee.
12. We would proceed on the basis that the High Court might have been justified in proceeding ex parte but then it should have kept in mind the principles underlying Order 8 Rule 5 CPC (assuming that the provisions of CPC are applicable in terms of the High Court Rules framed by the High Court of Allahabad despite Section 141 CPC), that not only despite non-filing of the written statement a court of law may call upon the plaintiff to prove his case but also there cannot be any doubt whatsoever, that no relief can be granted by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which would be contrary to law.
13. As basic foundational fact stands admitted before us, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appointment of Respondent 1 being contrary to the mandatory provisions as contained in Rule 6 of the Rules, the same was a nullity. An appointment which was per se illegal could not have been directed to be legalised only because the appellant did not file its counter-affidavit. It did not admit the respondent's claim. The question involved in the writ petition was a legal question. As indicated hereinbefore, the foundational facts are undisputed.
14. Rules of pleading contained in the Code of Civil Procedure do not cover questions of law. If a fact stands admitted the same in terms of Section 56 of the Evidence Act need not be proved. Only because such a question was not allegedly raised before the High Court, this Court could not shut its eyes to the legal position. Yet again only because an illegality has been committed, this Court would not allow its perpetuation. The respondent's father was on leave for a temporary period. He thereby did not cease to be the Manager of the school. It is apparent that he went on leave only for defeating the statutory provisions. Such an act amounts to fraud on the administration.
15. We, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, are of the opinion that whether in law or in equity, it would be wholly improper to permit Respondent 1 to continue to act as a Headmaster.
16. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside. The writ petition filed by Respondent 1 shall stand dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Alert