अनुदेशकों की नियुक्ति की अर्हता में ढील देने की याचिका खारिज, गलत नियुक्ति नहीं बन सकती दृष्टांत : हाईकोर्ट, शासनादेश वैध करार

 इलाहाबाद : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने कहा है कि किसी को गलत तरीके से नियुक्त किया गया है तो दूसरे लोग उसे दृष्टांत के रूप में पेश कर स्वयं की भी नियुक्ति की मांग नहीं कर सकते। कहा कि कोर्ट पर कानून के राज को लागू करवाने की जिम्मेदारी है, उससे कानून के विपरीत आदेश जारी करने की मांग नहीं की जा सकती। यह कहते हुए कोर्ट ने प्राथमिक विद्यालय में 11 माह के लिए संविदा पर अनुदेशकों की नियुक्ति अर्हता में ढील देने की मांग में दाखिल याचिकाएं खारिज कर दी है।

यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति एसपी केशरवानी ने विमलेश कुमारी व 14 अन्य की याचिका पर दिया है। 31 जनवरी 2013 के शासनादेश से इंटरमीडिएट कला विषय में उत्तीर्ण या बीए उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों को अनुदेशक पद पर मानदेय देकर नियुक्ति का फैसला लिया गया, जो कला विषय के साथ इंटरमीडिएट या स्नातक उत्तीर्ण नहीं थे, उन्हें चयन में शामिल नहीं किया गया। महाराष्ट्र से प्राविधिक कला विषय से इंटरमीडिएट उत्तीर्ण और सम्पूर्णानंद संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय वाराणसी से शास्त्री उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों को चयन में शामिल नहीं किया गया तो उन्होंने याचिका दाखिल की। 

याचियों का कहना था कि ड्राइंग ग्रेड को कला विषय माना जाए और शास्त्री को बीए के समकक्ष होने के नाते मान्य किया जाए। तर्क दिया कि दूसरे जिलों में ड्राइंग डिग्री वालों को कला विषय में शामिल करते हुए नियुक्त किया गया है। कोर्ट ने कहा कि शासनादेश की वैधता को चुनौती दी गई है लेकिन, उस पर बहस नहीं की गई। ऐसे में शासनादेश वैध है और इसके तहत निर्धारित अर्हता ही मान्य है। कोई यह नहीं कह सकता कि दूसरे जिले में गलत नियुक्ति हुई है तो उन्हें भी नियुक्त किया जाए। कोर्ट ने कहा कि गलत कार्य के लाभ की मांग नहीं की जा सकती।

न्यायालय आदेश 

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

A.F.R 

Court No. - 7 

1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36836 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Smt. Vimlesh Kumari And 16 Ors. 

Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 4 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.S. Shukla,Ram Prakash Shukla 

2.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43723 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Sarala Devi Kushwaha And Anr. 

Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.S. Shukla,Santosh Kumar 

3.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37319 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Maurya 

Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak K.Jaiswal,Sanjay Kumar Maurya 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.S. Shukla,K.Shahi 

4.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 69672 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Sushama Devi 

Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others 

Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Singh,C.J. Yadav 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,K.S. Shukla 

5.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39733 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Pal And 46 Ors. 

Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K.Singh,G.K.Singh 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav,K.S.Shukla 

6.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44495 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Km. Neelam Kumari Vishwakarma And Anr. 

Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar 

7.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43722 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Priti Kushwaha 

Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.S. Shukla,Santosh Kumar 

8.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36713 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Kapil Dev 

Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- T.K.Mishra,Yogesh Tiwari 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.S. Shukla,R.P.Shukla 

9.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37383 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Sunita Devi 

Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S.Yadav,Brij Raj 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.S. Shukla,R.P.Shukla 

10.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59206 of 2013 

Petitioner :- Ankita Rai 

Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N.Rai,Sanjeev Kumar Rai 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav,K.S. Shukla 

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. 

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ A No.39733 of 2013, Sri Anurag Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ A No. 36836 of 2013, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ - A Nos.43722 of 2013, 43723 of 2013 and 44495 of 2013, Sri Yogest Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ - A No. 36713 of 2013 and Sri Mohan Ji Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad. 

2. None appears in the rest of the writ petitions on behalf of the petitioners. 

Facts 

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that Government Order No.3371/79-5-2013-5/2010, dated 31.1.2013, was issued providing for engagement of part time "Anudeshak" (Instructor) on contractual basis for 11 months with provision for renewal. The aforesaid Government Order provides for eligibility as under: 

"(अ) शैक्षिक अर्हता-कला शिक्षा ;  (Art Education)

कला शिक्षा हेतु अंशकालिक अनुदेशकों की शैक्षिक अर्हता निम्नवत् होगी- 

इण्टरमीडिएट कला बिषय के साथ तथा बी0ए0 

अथवा 

ड्राइंग अथवा पेंटिंग के साथ बी0ए0 

अथवा 

इण्टरमीडिएट के साथ भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी विश्वविद्यालय अथवा मान्यता प्राप्त संस्थानों द्वारा प्रदत्त कला में विेशेष उपाधि अथवा डिप्लोमा।" 

4. Undisputedly, the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions either have not passed intermediate examination with Art subject or are not B.A. For this reason they were not considered for engagement as part time Instructor. Since the petitioners were non suited on account of having not done intermediate with Art subject and as such they have filed the present writ petition praying for the following relief (in Writ A No.36836 of 2013): 

(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government order dated 31.01.2013 in so far as it specifies Bachelor of Arts as a requisite degree for consideration for Anudeshak in Art Education as being arbitrary and unreasonable; or alternatively to command the respondents to treat the Shastri Degree obtained by the petitioners from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Visvidyalaya, Varanasi as sufficient qualification of Bachelor of Arts for treating the petitioners to be eligible for appointment as Anudeshak in Art Education. 

(ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature declaring the decision of the respondent no.3, 4 and 5 to treat Shastri Degree from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Visvidyalaya, Varanasi as an ineligible degree for consideration for appointment as Anudeshak in Art Education. 

(iii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioners as Anudeshak in Art Education treating the petitioner as being fully eligible within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court. 

5. Similar relief has been sought in other writ petitions also. 

Submissions of learned counsels for the parties: 

6. Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in some other Districts, the candidates having done intermediate with drawing technical (Pravidhik Kala) subject have been engaged and, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for equal treatment and deserves to be considered for engagement under the aforesaid Government Order. 

7. Sri G.K. Singh, neither argued nor pointed out any illegality or invalidity in the impugned Government order dated 31.1.2013. 

8. Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ A No. 43722 of 2013, Writ A No. 43723 of 2013 and Writ A No. 44495 of 2013 submits that the petitioners have passed intermediate with subject drawing and design which is equivalent to the Art subject, but they have been non suited merely on account of possessing Shastri degree from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Visvidyalaya, Varanasi, on the ground that it is not equivalent to B.A. 

9. He further submits that petitioners in Writ A No.43723 of 2013 has passed intermediate drawing grade examination conducted by Government of Maharashtra and thus it can not be said that they have not passed intermediate with Art subject. 

10. Learned standing counsel as well as Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for District Basic Education Officer have supported the action of the respondents. They further submit that no deviation can be made from the terms of the Government order for the aforesaid contractual engagement. They submit that since petitioners have not passed intermediate with Art subject and, therefore, they can not be engaged under the aforesaid Government Order. 

Discussion and Findings 

11. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 

12. Undisputedly, the Government Order dated 31.1.2013 provides for engagement of part time Instructors on contractual basis for a fixed period of 11 months on honorarium. No arguments have been advanced before me questioning the validity of the aforesaid Government Order. The aforesaid Government Order also provides for eligibility which has been reproduced above. None of the petitioners have passed intermediate with Art subject. Thus, they were not possessing the requisite qualification for being considered for engagement as a part time Instructors on contractual basis. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the intermediate with drawing technical subject or intermediate with drawing and design subject should be considered to be equivalent to intermediate with Art subject, can not be accepted since these subjects and the subject "Art" are separately provided which different students of Intermediate opted as per their choice in Intermediate. 

13. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit of respondent no.3 in Writ A No.43722 of 2013, it has been specifically stated that the petitioners have appended their certificate of academic qualification as intermediate which do not contain the subject "Art". This paragraph has been replied in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit which does not contain any specific denial to the specific averment made in the counter affidavit. Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted before this Court that the petitioners have passed intermediate with drawing technical and not with Art subject. Once the offer made for contractual engagements under the impugned Government Order provides the necessary qualification to be intermediate with art subject, there appears to be no good reason to allow the petitioners to be considered who have not passed intermediate with Art subject. 

14. Submission of Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel that in some Districts some candidates who passed intermediate with technical drawing subject have been engaged as Instructor, has been denied by the respondents. Even assuming that few candidates were engaged as Instructor in another district who have not passed intermediate with Art subject, that can not be made basis to issue a writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioners inasmuch as even if such illegality has taken place, it can not be allowed to perpetuate. Equality can not be claimed in illegality. An illegal or unwarranted order can not be made basis to issue a writ. Lord Jackson J. in his dissenting opinion in Massachusetts Vs. United States (1947) 333 U.S. 611 has observed that : "I see no reason why I should be consciously wrong today because I was unconsciously wrong yesterday." Lord Denning has also said to the same effect when he observed in Ostime Vs. Australian Mutual Provident Society, (1960) AC 459 that "The doctrine of precedent does not compel your Lordships to follow the wrong path until you fall over the edge of the cliff". It is settled law that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not be issued to perpetuate illegality. The petitioners do not have any legally protected or judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus. No Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor the court can direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders or directions contrary to law; vide Manish Goel Vs. Rohini Goel JT 2010(3) SC 189 (para 10 and 12); State of Punjab Vs. Renuka Singla (1994) 1 SCC 175; State of U.P. Vs. Harish Chandra AIR 1996 SC 2173, Union of India Vs. Kirloskar P. Co. AIR 1996 SC 3285, Vice Chancellor Vs. Dr. Anand Prakash (1997) 10 SCC 264, Karnataka State Road Transport Vs. Ashraf Ullah Khan JT 2002(1) SC 113 and Prem Chandra Garg Vs. Excise Commissioner AIR 1963 SC 996. 

15. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merits in these writ petitions. Consequently, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. 

Order Date :- 6.12.2017/vkg