Case Details

DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AND ANOTHER versus VINAY KUMAR VATSA AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement

District Inspector Of Schools And Another v. Vinay Kumar Vatsa And Another - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1048 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18200 (22 November 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CJ's Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Special Appeal No.[1048] of 2007

District Inspector of Schools, Agra and another. ....Appellants

Vs.

Vinay Kumar Vatsa, S/o Shri B.D. Sharma Gaur, R/o House No.140-141, New Adarsh Nagar, Balkeshwar Road and another. ...Respondents

Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

Date:22.11.2007.

Oral Judgment (Per: H.L. Gokhale, CJ.)

1. Heard Mr. Suresh Singh, learned Standing Counsel, in support of this appeal and Mr. Anil Bhushan with Ms. Rashmi Tripathi, who appears for Respondent No.1.

2. One of the teachers working in the Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College at Agra got promoted in a vacancy sometimes in the year 1994. Respondent no.1 was appointed in that vacancy by Respondent no.2-Committee of Management of that Inter College, to take care of the situation arising out of that vacancy.

3. It is the case of Respondent no.1 that till this date, no regular teacher has been sent to the Inter College by the authorities of the Government to fill that vacancy. It was sometimes on 14.6.2000, that an order was passed holding that the appointment was not a legal one and the appointment was not being approved. It was at that stage when the writ petition was filed with the prayer that, to quash the order dated 14.6.2000 and to pay the salary from 17.11.1995. It is the further case of Respondent no.1 that no regular teacher was appointed in that place and, therefore, he was working. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 14.6.2000 and directed that Respondent No.1 will continue and will get his regular salary.

4. Mr. Anil Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.1, states that Respondent no.1 be allowed to continue on that post until the regular candidate is appointed. Mr. Suresh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State, submitted that the Committee of Management had not brought to the notice of the District Inspector of Schools that any such vacancy had arisen, but no such ground is taken in the grounds of appeal. It is only across the bar and there is nothing placed on record that the District Inspector of Schools ever wrote to the Committee of Management even during the course of the pendency of the writ petition to notify the vacancy.

5. In the circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the order of the learned Single Judge that Respondent no.1 will continue on the post and will be paid his regular salary until the regular appointee is selected.

6. Mr. Bhushan, states that after this judgment and order was passed on 6.9.2006, the regular salary is being paid to Respondent no.1. It is his case that nothing was paid in the earlier period. It is very difficult to accept any such statement. The District Inspector of Schools will pass an order about arrears payable to the respondent no. 1 after looking into the records and ascertaining whether the Respondent no.1 had really worked and if so, what payment was made to him and what is the balance, which only will be paid to him.

7. The appeal is dismissed with these modifications.

Dt/-22.11.2007

RKK/- (Chief Justice)

(Pankaj Mithal, J.)

Copyright

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

Case Details

Case Law Search

Judgement

Copyright

Advertisement