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


Devendra Bahadur Singh Chandel v. Joint Director Of Edn. ,Kanpur & Others - WRIT - A No. - 31509 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 14598 (29 August 2007)

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).


Court No.40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31509 of 2002

Devendra Bahadur Singh Chandel Vs. Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur and others


Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. On the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being decided finally in terms of the Rules of the Court.

The case of the petitioner is that he was duly appointed on compassionate ground in accordance with law in class III post on the death of his father who was working as assistant clerk in the institution. That on 6.12.2001 the petitioner took charge of the post and was also paid salary for the month of December 2001. Since the petitioner was not paid salary w.e.f. January 2002 on the ground that there was no order or approval by the Joint Director of Education, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.20787 of 2002 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed off on 17.5.2002 by a reasoned and speaking order with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to look into the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law in respect with the claim/entitlement of the petitioner. The impugned order to the said writ petition dated 17.5.2002 staying the salary of the petitioner was kept in abeyance and would stand superseded by any fresh order/decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools. That vide letter dated 3.7.2002 the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat requested the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region to grant sanction for payment of salary to the petitioner since he had been duly appointed under the Regulations of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 on the recommendations dated 4.12.2001 of the District Regional Committee. However, vide impugned orders dated 16.7.2002 and 1.8.2002 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, the District Inspector of Schools stopped the payment of salary of the petitioner on the basis that the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region had not granted any sanction to the payment of the salary of the petitioner.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present Writ Petition No.31509 of 2002 wherein the respondent no.5-Munna Lal has been impleaded by the order of this Court dated 19.4.2006, who claimed appointment on the post in question by way of promotion from Class IV, and who has also filed a counter affidavit through his learned counsel Sri S.N. Misra, Advocate. In the impugned order dated 1.8.2002 the Joint Director of Education has passed the impugned order only on the ground that as the Regional Committee had decided that the sanctioned post was to be filled up by way of promotion then Sri Munna Lal-respondent no.5 under the 50% promotional quota being eligible was thus appointed in place of Devendra Bahadur Singh Chandel-petitioner who in turn would be posted in some another institution on the basis of seniority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has in support of his arguments stated that once the appointment of the petitioner has been made in accordance with law then the District Inspector of Schools cannot be prevented from payment of salary to him and the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 does not authorise the district level committee or the Joint Director of Education to exercise such power conferred on the District Inspector of Schools. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Ajit Ram Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia and others reported in {(2005)3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 2516}.

In the impugned order dated 1.8.2002, I find that the ground on which the impugned order has been passed is unsustainable being absolutely against law. There was admittedly only one sanctioned post and that being so it is required to be filled up by direct recruitment and cannot be filled up by way of promotion under the 50% quota in terms of the Chapter-III, Regulation 2 (2) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In a similar condition the said provisions have been exhaustively dealt with and in the case of Palak Dhari Yadav Vs. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and others reported in {(1999) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C.-2315}. The impugned order dated 16.7.2002 is also not justiciable. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 16.7.2002 and 1.8.2002 are hereby quashed. The services of the petitioner are not to be disturbed. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to release the salary along with entire arrears of the petitioner within one month from the date the certified copy of this order is placed before the concerned authority.

The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

August 29, 2007



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.