The High Court at Allahabad has quashed an order passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Gorakhpur, which had disapproved the appointment of a Clerk in a recognized minority institution. The court held that since the BSA failed to communicate a decision within the statutory 30-day period, the appointment attained finality through the principle of “deemed approval.”
The judgment was delivered by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, in a writ petition filed by the Committee of Management of St. John’s Girls Junior High School.
Background
The petitioner, St. John’s Girls Junior High School, is a recognized, aided, and minority institution. In 2016, following permission from the BSA, the institution advertised a vacancy for the post of Clerk in two newspapers. On May 25, 2017, a selection committee—which included Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Principal of Rajkiya High School, as the BSA’s nominee—unanimously selected Vikas Alexander for the post.
The institution submitted the selection documents to the BSA’s office on September 4, 2017, explaining that floods in Gorakhpur had caused a delay in filing. However, on October 7, 2017, the institution received an order dated September 28, 2017, from the BSA disapproving the appointment. The petitioner challenged this order, contending it was communicated after the 30-day statutory limit, thereby triggering Rule 15(5)(iii) of the 1984 Rules.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner: Counsel A.D. Saunders argued that under Rule 15(5)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984, the BSA must communicate a decision within one month. Since the papers were submitted on September 4 and the disapproval was only received on October 7, “deemed approval” had already taken effect on October 4. The petitioner relied on Sant Ram v. State of U.P. and Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. to support the claim that communication must occur within the 30-day window.
For the Respondents: The State challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing the Committee of Management lacked locus standi as the selected candidate was not a co-petitioner. Substantively, they argued the selection committee was improperly constituted because the BSA had not “officially” nominated Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey. They further contended there was an inordinate delay in forwarding the papers (over three months) and that the advertisement was not published in widely circulated newspapers.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court addressed several key legal points:
1. On Deemed Approval: The Court noted that the papers were received on September 4, 2017. Even taking the date the file was internally marked (September 6), the 30-day period expired on October 5. The order was communicated on October 7.
“In view of the provisions contained in Rule 15(5) of the Rules, 1984… the selection in question stood deemed to have been approved upon expiry of the prescribed period.”
2. On the BSA’s Nominee: The Court rejected the BSA’s claim that the nominee was unauthorized. It noted that Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey participated and signed the proceedings without objection.
“Once a nominee, representing the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, has in fact participated in the selection process without any demur, the objection… is a hyper-technical plea which cannot be permitted to vitiate an otherwise valid selection.”
The Court cited State of U.P. v. Gunjan Singh and BSA, Ambedkar Nagar v. Chandraprakash Tripathi, reinforcing that a selection process cannot be frustrated by the authority’s failure to formally communicate a nominee’s name when a representative did, in fact, participate.
3. On the Delay in Submitting Papers: The Court found the institution’s explanation regarding floods to be a “valid and sufficient cause.” It held that Rule 15(3) and (4) are directory, not mandatory.
“Substantial justice ought not to be defeated on account of technicalities, particularly when the delay stands reasonably explained.”
4. On Locus Standi: The Court overruled the preliminary objection regarding the petitioner’s standing, noting the petition had been pending since 2018.
“The belated plea of lack of locus standi is clearly an afterthought… Permitting such an objection to be entertained belatedly would not only defeat the cause of substantive justice but would also result in unnecessary protraction of proceedings.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the impugned order suffered from “manifest arbitrariness” and “non-application of mind.” Consequently, the Court:
- Set aside and quashed the BSA’s order dated September 28, 2017.
- Allowed the writ petition.
- Directed that all consequential benefits, including salary payments to the selected candidate, shall follow.
Case Details:
- Case Title: C/M St. Johns Girls Junior High School v. State of U.P. and another
- Case No: WRIT – A No. 10958 of 2018
- Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
- Date: April 03, 2026
