Shaik Mastanvali Vs. Correspondent, Nehru Memorial Committee Aided Elementary School and anr.

Shaik Mastanvali vs Correspondent, Nehru Memorial Committee Aided Elementary School and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Nov 21, 2002

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/445369

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/445369
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.R. Nayak, J.
Decided On: Nov 21, 2002
Case Number: WP No. 20248 of 1996
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - reinstatement - respondents ex parte - first respondent transferred petitioner to lower post of Assistant - petitioner subsequently suspended for not joining - District Education Officer cancelled transfer and ordered reinstatement of petitioner to post of Headmaster - petitioner reinstated - Deputy Inspec...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shaik Mastanvali

Advocate P.V. Krishnaiah, Adv.

Respondent

Correspondent, Nehru Memorial Committee Aided Elementary School and anr.

Advocate Government Pleader for Education for Respondent No. 2

Legal References

Reported In: 2003(1)ALD57; 2003(3)ALT587

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........the petitioner has asked for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary to him for the period from 6.7.1990 to 21.1.1991 on the basis of the proceedings of the deputy inspector of school in rc.no. 642/b/92, dated 6.2.1993.3. the background facts leading to the above claim, as set out by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in the writ petition, be noted briefly as under:4. the first respondent issued proceedings rc.no. 1/90 nmc, dated 14.5.1990 transferring the petitioner from the post of headmaster (secondary grade), nehru memorial committee aided elementary school and posting him as assistant in the place of sri k. sanjeeva reddy. according to the petitioner, the said action of the first respondent tantamounted to reversion to a lower post and therefore, he did not join duty in place of sri k.sanjeeva reddy. in the circumstances, the first respondent issued proceedings rc.no. 1/90, dated 30.6.1990 suspending the petitioner from the post of headmaster for not joining the service in the place of sri k.sanjeeva reddy as school assistant. that was followed by a memo no. rc. 1/ 90, dated 3.7.1990 issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to handover charge to sri k.sanjeeva reddy. on a representation made by the petitioner, the district educational officer, guntur cancelled the transfer orders issued by the first respondent and issued proceedings rc.no. 9509/c.5/90, dated 31.7.1990 to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service to the post of headmaster with immediate effect and, also directed the deputy inspector of schools (urban range) to visit the school along with the petitioner and see that the orders are implemented in his presence. accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service as headmaster. further, the deputy inspector of schools in rc.no. 642/b/92, dated 6.2.1993 had given a direction to the first respondent that the period of absence till his reinstatement in the post of headmaster should be treated as.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.R. Nayak, J.

1. Although rule nisi was issued by this Court on 25.9.1996, till-date, no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. At the time of hearing too, none appeared, nor any representation was made, on behalf of the respondents. Since the writ petition is of the year 1996 and since it is stated that the petitioner-employee has already retired, I do not think it appropriate to postpone the decision-making suo motu.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has asked for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary to him for the period from 6.7.1990 to 21.1.1991 on the basis of the proceedings of the Deputy Inspector of School in Rc.No. 642/B/92, dated 6.2.1993.

3. The background facts leading to the above claim, as set out by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in the writ petition, be noted briefly as under:

4. The first respondent issued Proceedings Rc.No. 1/90 NMC, dated 14.5.1990 transferring the petitioner from the post of Headmaster (Secondary Grade), Nehru Memorial Committee Aided Elementary School and posting him as Assistant in the place of Sri K. Sanjeeva Reddy. According to the petitioner, the said action of the first respondent tantamounted to reversion to a lower post and therefore, he did not join duty in place of Sri K.Sanjeeva Reddy. In the circumstances, the first respondent issued Proceedings Rc.No. 1/90, dated 30.6.1990 suspending the petitioner from the post of Headmaster for not joining the service in the place of Sri K.Sanjeeva Reddy as School Assistant. That was followed by a Memo No. Rc. 1/ 90, dated 3.7.1990 issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to handover charge to Sri K.Sanjeeva Reddy. On a representation made by the petitioner, the District Educational Officer, Guntur cancelled the transfer orders issued by the first respondent and issued Proceedings Rc.No. 9509/C.5/90, dated 31.7.1990 to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service to the post of Headmaster with immediate effect and, also directed the Deputy Inspector of Schools (Urban Range) to visit the school along with the petitioner and see that the orders are implemented in his presence. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service as Headmaster. Further, the Deputy Inspector of Schools in Rc.No. 642/B/92, dated 6.2.1993 had given a direction to the first respondent that the period of absence till his reinstatement in the post of Headmaster should be treated as on duty for all purposes and to pay the salary from 6.7.1990 to 21.1.1991 and directed the first respondent to inform about the compliance of the direction. The petitioner has complained that despite the above specific instructions and directions issued by the District Educational Officer, Guntur and the Deputy Inspector of Schools (Urban Range), Guntur to release the salary to the petitioner for the period from 6.7.1990 to 21.1.1991, the first respondent has not paid the salary till-date. In support of the pleadings, necessary documents are appended to the writ petition.

5. In the premise of the pleadings of the petitioner and the supporting material and in the absence of any contra-pleading or material placed by the respondents, the refusal of the respondents to pay salary from the relevant period should be condemned as illegal and arbitrary. The first respondent, as directed by the District Educational Officer, Guntur and also by the Deputy Inspector of Schools (Urban Range), Guntur, should have treated the period of suspension of the petitioner as on duty and should have paid the salary and other allowances for the period from 6-7-1990 to 21-1-1991.

6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and a direction shall issue to the first respondent to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as on duty and to pay salary and other admissible allowances to him for the period from 6-7-1990 to 21-1-1991 within a period of one month from today. The petitioner is also entitled to the costs of this writ petition, quantified at Rs. 2,000/-, payable by the first respondent to the petitioner within 10 days from today.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2002 Same Parties Shaik Mastanvali vs Correspondent, Nehru Memorial Committee A... Same Subject Service Same Judge S.R. Nayak, J.

Service