High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ajeet Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary & Others - WRIT - A No. - 11273 of 2007  RD-AH 17322 (2 November 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 2
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11273 of 2007
Ajeet Pratap Singh ........... Petitioner
State of U.P. & Others ........... Respondents
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.N. Rai for the respondent No.7. Sri R.S. Singh appears for respondent No.6 and Standing counsel for the respondent No.1, 2,3 and 4.
The petitioner has prayed that a suitable direction be issued commanding the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner as a class IV employee and restraining them from passing any order in favour of the respondent No.7.
The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that a vacancy of a class IV employee exist at the institution Gandhi Inter College, Kooba, District Azamgarh. On the said post after issuing an advertisement one Hansraj Maurya was selected for appointment but his appointment was disapproved by the Regional Committee on the ground that he is overage and an order to this effect was issued by the Joint Director of Eduction on 24.6.2006 which was followed by the consequential order dated 1.7.2006 of the DIOS. On the above disapproval of the appointment of Hansraj Maurya, the principal of the institution submitted papers for the appointment of Smt. Amrawati Devi who was none other than the wife of the aforesaid Hansraj Maurya. The papers recommending appointment of Smt. Amrawati Devi were also disapproved by the DIOS on 12.12.2006. Thereafter the principal of the institution initiated fresh steps for the appointment of a class IV employee. The post was re-advertised in three newspapers 'Dainik Jagran' dated 13.12.2006, 'Aaj' dated 3.1.2006 and 'Amar Ujala' dated 3.9.2007. As per the advertisement selection took place on 24.1.2007 in which the petitioner also participated along with respondent No.7. On the basis of the aforesaid selection the name of the respondent No.7 was recommended at Sl. No. 1 and that of the petitioner at Sl. No. 2. It is contended that papers for approval are pending consideration before the DIOS.
On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that respondent No.7 is son of Hansraj Maurya and Smt. Amarwati Devi, the recommendations for the appointment of both of whom on the said post were previously disapproved. The principal is committed to give appointment to a family member of Hansraj Maurya and it is for this reason now the name of the respondent No.7 has been recommended for appointment. The respondent No.7 is not eligible for appointment as on the cut of date i.e. 1.7.2006 on the basis of year of recruitment 2006-07, he is under age being less than 18 years as, his date of birth happens to be 18.11.1988.
Sri A.N. Rai on the other hand submitted that respondent No.7 is not under age. The cut of date for calculating the minimum prescribed age to be 1.7.2007 and not 1.7.2006. He also submitted that the DIOS is ceased with the matter and therefore, the petition is premature.
Undoubtedly, as per petitioners own showing the principal has forwarded the papers relating to the selection and empanellment of the petitioner and the respondent No.7 for appointment as class IV employee at the institution for necessary action and approval. The DIOS/Regional Committed has not yet taken any decision in the matter. The issue as to whether the respondent No.7 is eligible or is under age for appointment is a matter to be considered and decided by the DIOS in accordance with the relevant Rules/Regulations and the notifications/government orders issued from time to time. Therefore, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is difficult to grant any of the prayers as made by the petitioners in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Any decision of this Court in this regard at this stage would amount to usurping the powers of the DIOS. Therefore, it is in the fitness of things that the petition be disposed with appropriate directions to the DIOS.
Accordingly, it is provided that the DIOS shall consider the recommendations made by the principal/committee of management of the institution for the appointment of the respondent No.7 and the petitioner as a class IV employee in the institution in accordance with law by a speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to both of them. It shall be open for the DIOS/Regional Committee to consider the eligibility of the respondent No.7 in relation to the year of recruitment while considering and deciding the matter. It goes without saying that in case the respondent No.7 is not found to be eligible or the recommendation made in his favour does not the stand approval of the DIOS/Regional committee, the DIOS/Regional committee shall consider the name of the petitioner for appointment as a class IV employee at the institution as per the recommendations already made. It shall also be open for the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the principal/committee of management of the institution in case the recommendations made in favour of the respondent No.7 are disapproved and it is found that the action on part of the principal/committee of management for recommending his name were in any way collusive. The matter shall be decided by the DIOS/Regional Committee preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.