उत्तर प्रदेशीय प्राथमिक शिक्षक संघ की याचिका पर बेसिक शिक्षा सचिव के सत्र लाभ पर दिए निस्तारण के खिलाफ उच्च न्यायालय की (स्टे) रोक : 2 अप्रैल के बाद की जन्मतिथि वाले होंगे 31 मार्च 2016 को (सेवानिवृत्त) रिटायर

उत्तर प्रदेशीय प्राथमिक शिक्षक संघ की याचिका पर बेसिक शिक्षा सचिव के सत्र लाभ पर दिए निस्तारण के खिलाफ उच्च न्यायालय की (स्टे) रोक : 2 अप्रैल के बाद की जन्मतिथि वाले होंगे 31 मार्च 2016 को (सेवानिवृत्त) रिटायर

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

Court No. - 10 

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3685 of 2015 

Petitioner :- U.P.Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Throu Its President And Ors. 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Madhyamik Edu.Lko.& Ors 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sandep Kumar Yadav,Sobhit Mohan Shukla,Vindhyawashini 

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. 
Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Kumar for opposite party no.4, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla for opposite party no. 5, Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav for opposite party no. 6 and learned Chief Standing Counsel for official opposite parties. 

By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P., rejecting the representation of the members of petitioner no. 1 for being allowed to continue in service till the end of academic session i.e. 31st March, 2016 in view of the change in the academic session brought about by the Government Order dated 09.12.2014, and consequential order dated 22.01.2015. 

This Court has already considered this issue in a similar Writ Petition No. 3632 (SS) of 2015 filed by the teachers of the schools run by the Basic Education Board and has passed a detailed interim order on 29.06.2015 which reads as under:-- 
"By means of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking continuance in service till the end of Academic Session, i.e. 31st March. The petitioner has also challenged a part of the Government Order dated 09.12.2014 and the consequential order dated 22.1.2015. 

Earlier the Academic Session, as defined in Rule 2 (aa) of the Rule 29 of the 1981 Rules, commenced from 1st of July and ended on 30th June thereafter. Based on the aforesaid provision Rule 29 of the 1981 Rules provided that if the date of retirement of the Head Master or the Assistant Teacher of a recognized school falls on or after July to during the Academic Session, then he shall retire on 30th June following next after the said date. 

Now, by means of the Government Order dated 9.12.2014 period of Academic Session has been changed. With effect from 2015-16 the Academic Session has commenced from 1st April and shall end on 31st March following next after the said date. The dates mentioned in Rule 29(1) have a rational co-relation to the Academic Session. The object of the Rule 
is to ensure that teaching of students should not suffer on account of retirement of teachers in mid Academic Session. Once the period of Academic Session has changed from 1st July to 30th June to 1st April to 31st March, the logical corollary of it is that any teacher whose date of retirement falls during the changed Academic Session, shall be entitled to continue till the end of the Session. This is how Rule 29 has to be read in the changed circumstances. The dates mentioned therein, in the absence of an amendment, have to be read down and understood in context of the changed Academic Session, otherwise the provision would be rendered irrational and will lead to absurdity. 

The contention of the learned standing counsel based on para 3 of the Government Order dated 09.12.2014 that though the period of Academic Session has changed, but this has been done only for the purposes of admission and promotion etc. of students and it has no bearing upon the continuance of the teachers, which, in view of the last line of the aforesaid para 3, continues to be governed by the earlier arrangement and this line is in consonance with the definition of Academic Session contained in Rule 2(aa) and Rule Rule 29 of the 1981 Rules, meaning thereby in spite of the aforesaid change the teachers whose date of retirement falls in mid Academic Session can continue only till 30 June, and not 31 March, 2016. 

This contention prima facie is incongruous with the object of Rule 29. The dates mentioned in Rule 29 have a rational connection with the period of Academic Session. Once the period has changed and now it is from 1st April to 31st March, then Rule 29 has to be applied keeping in mind the aforesaid Session, and not otherwise. The Academic Session and continuance of teachers cannot be treated separately. The dates mentioned in Rule 29 has to have a rational connect with the Academic Session, therefore, the dates mentioned therein have to be read down as 1st of April to 31st of March, otherwise the provision will be rendered irrational and unconstitutional. 

A similar change of Academic Session has been made in respect to the schools governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 
In view of the above, as the petitioner's date of birth falls in mid Academic Session which has commenced from 1st April, 2015 and shall end on 31 March 2016, he is entitled to continue till the end of Academic Session. 

Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. 

List thereafter. 

It is accordingly provided, subject to verification of the petitioner's date of birth, he be allowed to continue till the end of Academic Session i.e. 31.3.2016 and shall be paid salary regularly subject, however, to the final result of the Writ Petition." 
For the reasons mentioned in the above quoted order the reason given in para 4 of order dated 15.06.2015 is not in consonance with the object of Rule 29 of the Rules 1981. As far as para 5 of the impugned order is concerned the same does not suffer from any error and the writ petitions involving similar issue wherein the teachers had attained the age of superannuation prior to 1st April, 2015 but were continuing till the end of academic session as per earlier arrangement, have already been dismissed.� 

Suffice it to say that the benefit of the interim order dated 29.06.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 3632 (SS) of 2015 shall be available to the petitioners also. 

Let counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within 4 weeks.� 
Connect this petition with Writ Petition No. 3632 (SS) of 2015. 
Order Date :- 30.6.2015 
Shaakir
(Rajan Roy,J.)