High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jai Prakash Singh And Anr v. Distt. Inspector Of Schols, And Anr. - WRIT - A No. 2412 of 1995  RD-AH 13000 (27 July 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12090 of 1995
Achchan Khan & another Vs. D.I.O.S. and others
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
It is the case of the petitioners that on two vacant posts of Assistant Teachers, the petitioners had been appointed by a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 30.6.1993. Appointment letters were issued in favour of the petitioners on 1.7.1993, on which date itself the petitioners joined as Assistant Teachers in the institution of Respondent no.2/5. It has been alleged that papers relating to the appointment of the petitioners for grant of financial approval, were forwarded to the District Inspector of School on 8.7.1993. Since the said approval was not granted by the respondents and the names of the petitioners were not included in the salary bill as directed by the District Magistrate vide communication dated 24.3.1995, this writ petition has thus been filed with the prayer for quashing the order dated 24.3.1995 as well as for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue to work and pay them their salary month to month with effect from 1.7.1993.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.
Nowhere in the writ petition has it been stated that any advertisement had been issued inviting applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Teachers. The petitioners have also not placed on record any document to show that the vacancies had been duly notified to the District Inspector of School and any sanction had been accorded by the educational authorities for filling up the said vacancies. It has also not been stated as to how many persons had appeared before the selection committee. All that has been said is that a resolution dated 30.6.1993 was passed in favour of the petitioners and they were issued appointment letters on 1.7.1993, on which date itself they joined. In such circumstances the Committee of Management which has given appointment to the petitioners can at best be held responsible for making payment of salary to the petitioners on such terms as may have been fixed by the Committee of Management. However, the question of payment of salary through the State fund would not arise unless the appointments of the petitioners were validly made after grant of permission by the educational authorities to fill up the vacancies and after due advertisement and following the selection process. In the present case, nothing has been stated by the petitioners as to what selection process had been adopted and how many applications were invited and if advertised, in which newspaper was it done. The state cannot be saddled with the liability of payment of salary of a teacher appointed by the Committee of Management without following due procedure prescribed by law. As such in the aforesaid circumstances when the appointment of the petitioners had been made without following the procedure and without taking any prior approval from the educational authorities, the prayer made in this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioners from the State fund cannot be granted.
This writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.