Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Munna Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Secondary Education & Others - WRIT - A No. 27532 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 6870 (29 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).




Munna Lal


State of U.P. and others.



By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 5.7.2002, Annexure-11 to the writ petition passed by respondent no.2.Further prayer is for directing respondent no.2 to pay the salary to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Janta Inter College, Barsauli, Hathras which is a recognized institution. The U.P. Intermediate Education Act and Payment of Salary Act are also applicable to the institution.

The case of the petitioner is that a permanent L.T. Grade teacher Sri Ram Singh Kumbhawat was promoted to the post of Lecturer Hindi by the Committee of Management of the institution on 1.7.1997. After the promotion of the aforesaid teacher a post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi on adhoc basis for a short-term vacancy has fallen vacant. As such, the Committee of Management has informed the said fact to the relevant authority and steps have been taken for the purpose of making appointment on adhoc basis. The said vacancy was advertised in two newspapers namely ''Amar Ujala' and ''Dainik Pravada' dated 8.7.1997. As the petitioner was having qualification of M.Sc. (Math.) and M.A. (Economics) as well as B.Ed. he was fully eligible to be appointed on the post of Assistant teacher L.T. Grade. A selection committee was constituted and selection and interview were held on 22.7.97. The petitioner as well as other candidates appeared before the Selection Committee and the petitioner was found most eligible by the Selection Committee and was selected and a decision to that effect dated 22.7.97 was communicated to the District Inspector of Schools and a recommendation to that effect was made in favour of the petitioner and an appointment letter dated 2.9.97 was issued in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner joined as Assistant Teacher on 5.9.97. All the relevant papers relating to the appointment of the petitioners were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 17.10.1997 for the grant of financial approval. The same was received on the same day by respondent no.2. i.e. on 17.10.97. In spite of the repeated request and reminders the District Inspector of Schools have not taken any decision regarding the financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner though the petitioner is working and is teaching in the institution but due to the inaction of respondent no.2 the salary is not being paid to the petitioner. Even the Principal of the institution has sent a letter to the respondent No.2 for taking action regarding financial approval relating to the payment of salary to the petitioner. Suddenly by order dated 5.7.2002 without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner an order has been passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioners only on the ground that there was a ban for making any appointment on the short term basis, therefore, no approval can be granted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has approached this Court. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was no ban at any point of time by the State Government or any authority for not filling up of any post on adhoc basis in short term vacancy. It has further been submitted by the petitioner that from the perusal of the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 5.7.2002 it is clearly apparent that the order has been passed in a mechanical manner without assigning any reason. As such the order-dated 5.7.2002 is to be treated as an order of non-application of mind and as such the same is liable to be quashed.

Counter affidavits has been filed, in para 4 it has been stated that as the proper procedure which was provided for the purpose of filling a short term vacancy in L.T. grade  has not been followed and as advertisement has not been published in two widely circulated newspapers therefore, the respondent no.2 has passed an order disapproving the appointment of the petitioner.

I have heard Sri K.P. Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. From the perusal of the record it is clear that the advertisement was made in two newspapers and it is not the case of the respondent authority that the proper Selection Committee was not constituted and the petitioner was not eligible on the basis of quality point marks and he cannot  be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade. The Standing Counsel has not come with the case that during the period when the petitioner was given appointment there was any ban for making an appointment by the Committee of Management to fill up the short-term vacancy. The Court has perused the order. From the perusal of the order dated 5.7.2002 it clearly appears that respondent no.2 has passed an order without assigning any reason, therefore, in my opinion it will be treated to be an order of non-application of mind. Respondent no.2 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner was obliged to record a reason and to mention the  notification or the Government Order by which there was any ban. Only by saying that there was a ban, as such the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved is an act of illegality committed by respondent no.2.

In view of the aforesaid fact the order dated 5.7.2002 Annexure-11 to the writ petition passed by respondent no.2 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 to pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law if possible after affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as Committee of Management. The aforesaid exercise be done by respondent no.2 preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.




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


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 |

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