Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Surendra Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 41717 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 6374 (22 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.9    

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41717/2005

Surendra Singh & another

                                                             .........Petitioners

Vs.

State of U.P. & others

                                                            ..........Respondents    

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Shri P.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.    This is the fourth writ petition filed by the petitioners for approval of their services as adhoc Asstt. Teachers in short term vacancies and for payment of their salary.  In paragraph 40 of the writ petition it is stated that in the first writ petition No.11351 of 1998, which is still pending, the petitioners have moved a withdrawal application, which has not been decided so far.  The second writ petition No.43044 of 1998 was disposed of on 12.1.1999, for deciding their representation, which was decided by the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of School, Bagpat  on 12.3.2005, under challenged in this writ petition.  The third writ petition No.6301 of 2000  was filed as the representation was not being decided.

The petitioners could have amended his writ petition No.11351 of 1998 or writ petition No.6301 of 2000 to seek these reliefs.    Now since the impugned order records detailed reasons, I do not find it appropriate to relegate the petitioners the remedy of amending the earlier two pending writ petitions, and proceeded to hear and decide the matter.

The petitioners' adhoc appointments were disapproved  on the ground that  the  advertisement was not made in the well known newspapers having vide circulation.  The advertisements were carried out in daily newspapers ''Meerut Patra' and ''Hamara Yug'.  These two newspapers are not  heard of and do not appear to have any circulation even in Meerut.   It was found that the selection committee selected Surendra Singh and Shri Sunil Kumar (SC) whereas petitioner No.2 Shri Dhurendra Deo was allowed to take charge  and to teach the institution.  His name was not considered by the Selection Committee and this raises a serious doubt over the entire selection process. The third and fourth grounds with regard to prior approval, and for providing quota for Scheduled Caste candidates also appear to be valid. No reply was given to these two grounds.   Lastly it was found that the selection was not made by giving quality point marks to the applicants and that there was a ban on the appointments placed by the Directorate of Education vide its letter dated 17.7.1991.   Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the reasons given in the order rejecting the representation.  He submits that the newspapers have wide circulation and the selection was made by giving quality point marks and keeping the quota into consideration.   He has, however, not given full and detailed facts with regard to the selections.  In the letter of the District Inspector of School, Meerut dated 14.10.1997 requesting the Deputy Inspector of Schools to approve the name of the candidates for adhoc appointments four names have been given namely Sri Sunil Kumar (SC), Sri Surendra Singh (General), Shri Khurshid Ali (OBC) and Shri Dhirendra Singh (General).    There is no explanation as to how the name of Shri Dhurendra Deo entered in the selections and the circumstances in which he was allowed to join.  It is contended that Shri Dhurendra Deo was selected in the same selections and this raises a doubt over the entire process of selection.

I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt.22.3.2006

SP/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.