High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Om Prakash Tripathi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 47619 of 2007  RD-AH 17351 (2 November 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon. Pankaj Mithal,J
Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Standing counsel appears for respondents No. 1 to 3.
In this writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is that without awaiting for the approval of the petitioner's appointment as clerk, the post on which the petitioner is working is being illegally filled up by promotion of respondents No. 5 and 6 from amongst the class IV employees working in the institution. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a clerk way back on 20.1.1991. However, he was not paid salary as such for want of approval. Since financial approval was not given by the office of the District Inspector of schools, he had filed writ petition No. 20948 of 1992 which is pending.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that until and unless his claim for direct appointment as clerk is not considered and finalized, the respondents should not fill up the post which is holding by way of promotion.
Admittedly, the petitioner is claiming continuance on the post of clerk with effect from 20.1.1991. He has not been paid any salary so far and no financial approval has been granted to his appointment. Therefore, it is not at all justifiable to withhold any fresh appointments either by direct recruitment or by promotion on the post of clerk.
However, as the petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 6.9.2007 to the District Inspector of Schools a copy of which is enclosed as anneuxre 13 to the writ petition and his matter with regard to according the financial approval to his appointment as clerk is said to be pending before the District Inspector of Schools, it is appropriate for the District Inspector of Schools to take appropriate action in the matter at the earliest. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 has no objection, if the matter is considered and decided by the District Inspector of Schools.
In view of the above submissions the petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the matter i.e., above referred representation of the petitioner as also the matter with regard to approval of his appointment as clerk with effect from 20.1.1991 as claimed by him in accordance with law by a speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Petition disposed of as above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.