A.P. Sahi, J.@mdashHeard Sri. J.J. Munir who appears for the petitioners in this writ petition and is for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in Writ Petition No. 60172 of 2012. The said writ petition has been filed by one Asha Rani Ahuja also challenging the very same order which is impugned herein. The petition had been entertained on 21.11.2012 and the learned Standing Counsel had been granted ample time to file a counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed till date. The said writ petition was connected with Writ Petition No. 52299 of 2012 also filed by one of the aggrieved candidates who is similarly situate as the petition herein. There also a counter-affidavit was called; or vide order dated 8.10.2012 but till date no counter-affidavit has been filed by the State. Since the issue involved is identical in all the three writ petitions relating to the same impugned order, therefore, all the three writ petitions are being disposed of finally at this stage itself. I am not inclined to grant any further time for riling counter-affidavit as the question raised can be answered on the basis of the material on record.
2. The Institution, namely Hafiz Siddiqui Islam Inter College is undisputedly a minority instituting having protection of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The dispute in this petition relates to the impugned order dated 6.8.2012 passed by the District Inspector of Schools refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners as Class IV employees and the petitioner of Writ petition No. 52299 of 2012 on the ground that there was no prior permission from the District Inspector of Schools as per Regulation 101 of Chapter 3 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The second ground taken is that the selected candidates, namely, the petitioners aforesaid are related to Member Trustees of the Institution.
3. Both these grounds have been challenged on the basis of the provisions contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to contend that no prior permission is required insofar as appointments in Minority Institutions are concerned. The second ground is that the relationship with the Members of the General Body of the Society is not the prohibition as contained in Chapter 3 Regulation 4 of the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act. The complaint, made through a representation alleges that the advertisement was not in accordance with law which fact has also been disputed even though no finding has been recorded by the District Inspector of Schools on that ground. It is alleged that the entire procedure was adopted in accordance with the Rules that are applicable, and in absence of any illegality in the selection procedure, the impugned order dated 6.8.2012 deserves to be quashed.
4. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 60172 of 2012, namely, Asha Rani Ahuja has challenged the selection proceeding on the ground that no prior permission is required in respect of a minority institution but at the same time the selection of Faizan and Mohd. Aftab has been challenged on the ground that they are relatives of the members of the Committee of Management.
5. Having heard Sri. J.J. Munir learned counsel in two of the Writ Petitions and Sri. Yatindra in Writ Petition No. 60172 of 2002, and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents in all the writ petitions, the order of the District Inspector of Schools cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, firstly there is no specific provision for applying Regulation 101 to Minority Institutions but assuming that it is regulatory, permission does not mean prior approval as envisaged under the Rules which has already been explained in the Division Bench Judgment of Jagdish Singh v. State, 2006(2) UPLBEC 1851.
Secondly, the objection taken with regard to the bar contained in Chapter 3 Regulation 4 is also not attracted inasmuch as admittedly the father-in-law of Aftab and father of Faizan are both members of the general body of the trustee board. They are not office bearers nor any such finding has been recorded in the impugned order. In such circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools has erroneously concluded that the bar operates in respect of such selections.
Accordingly, the order dated 6.8.2012 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. All the writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent and the matter is remanded back to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter again in the light of the observations made hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners, the Committee of Management and the Principal of the Institution.
Needless to say that the District Inspector of Schools shall verify the status of the post and its availability and sanction by the competent authority.
