School Clerk Promotion Dispute: Supreme Court Allows Appointee to Continue Till Retirement

The case of Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay vs. Palak Dhari Yadav & Ors. revolves around the appointment and promotion dispute for the post of a Clerk in D.A.V. Kanya Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Mau, Uttar Pradesh. This case highlights issues related to direct recruitment versus promotion and the judicial interpretation of employment rules under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

Background of the Case

D.A.V. Kanya Uchhatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya is a government-aided institution in Uttar Pradesh. The school follows the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and its allied rules and regulations.

The management of the institution published an advertisement on June 20-26, 1989, in VANDEVI, a weekly newspaper, inviting applications for the post of Clerk. The application deadline was July 10, 1989, with the interview scheduled for July 12, 1989.

Appointment of Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay

Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, the appellant, applied for the post and was selected through the interview process.
He received his appointment letter on August 18, 1989, and joined the position on September 1, 1989.
His appointment was approved by the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools, Gorakhpur, through an official letter dated March 7, 1990.

Legal Challenge by Palak Dhari Yadav

Palak Dhari Yadav, a Class IV employee of the school, challenged Upadhyay’s appointment, filing a writ petition (C.M.W.P. No. 6681 of 1990) before the Allahabad High Court.

The key argument made by Yadav was based on Regulation 2(2) of Chapter-III of the rules framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He contended that:

When only one clerk position is vacant in an institution, it should be filled through promotion rather than direct recruitment.
The management’s decision to conduct open recruitment instead of promoting an in-service Class IV employee violated established rules.

In response, Upadhyay filed a separate writ petition (C.M.W.P. No. 19091 of 1990) seeking the release of his salary, as he was not being paid despite receiving an official appointment.

Single Judge Ruling

On July 30, 1999, a Single Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Upadhyay, stating:

The management had the discretion to fill the post through direct recruitment.
Upadhyay’s appointment was valid, and he was entitled to receive his salary.
Yadav’s claim for promotion was dismissed.

Division Bench Ruling

Yadav appealed against the Single Judge’s decision in Special Appeal No. 728 of 1999, and the school management also filed an appeal (Special Appeal No. 729 of 1999).

On October 5, 2006, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Judge’s decision, ruling that:

The post should have been filled through promotion, not direct recruitment.
Upadhyay’s appointment was invalid under Regulation 2(2) of Chapter-III.
The management was directed to consider eligible Class IV employees for promotion.

The Division Bench relied on the precedent set in Jai Bhagwan Singh vs. District Inspector of Schools (2006) 4 All Law Journal 438 (DB).

Supreme Court’s Judgment

Aggrieved by the High Court’s ruling, Upadhyay and the school management appealed to the Supreme Court.

On February 3, 2016, the Supreme Court, comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, ruled in favor of Upadhyay, allowing him to continue in his position until retirement.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court:

The original petitioner, Palak Dhari Yadav, had retired during the pendency of the case.
No other in-service employee had stepped forward claiming eligibility for promotion.
Upadhyay had served in the position for 26 years without any adverse findings against him.
Since no one was available for promotion, and Upadhyay was qualified, he should be allowed to continue.

Final Order by the Supreme Court:

Upadhyay would remain in service until retirement.
After Upadhyay’s retirement, the post should be filled through promotion if a suitable candidate was available.
If the number of clerk positions increased, the school should fill them according to the applicable rules.

Key Legal Takeaways

Promotion vs. Direct Recruitment: When a single post is available, it should be filled through promotion unless valid reasons justify direct recruitment.
Judicial Discretion: The Supreme Court exercised discretion considering practical realities rather than strictly applying technical legal principles.
Retirement Impact: When the petitioner (Yadav) retired, his claim for promotion became irrelevant.
Equity and Stability: The Court ensured job security for Upadhyay, who had served for over two decades.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case underscores the balance courts must strike between legal technicalities and equitable considerations. By allowing Upadhyay to continue in service, the Court recognized the need for practical solutions while maintaining the integrity of employment regulations.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sanjay Kumar Upadhya vs Palak Dhari Yadav & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-02-2016-1741852448326.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by J. Chelameswar
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category