Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TEJ KUMAR PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tej Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 38892 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 5398 (26 March 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 OF ALLAHABAD

      Court No. 39            

 

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38892 of 2006

Tej Kumar Pandey

versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court, questioning the validity of order dated 20.05.2006, passed by District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, by means of which papers, which had been transmitted for according approval to the post of clerk, has been rejected, on the ground that neither prior permission had been obtained nor had the provisions of reservation been complied with.

  Division Bench of this Court in the case of  Jagdish Singh etc. v. State of U.P. and others, (2006) UPLBEC 2765, has taken the view that  no appointment against class III or Class IV post in a duly recognized Higher Secondary School or Intermediate College can be made without taking prior permission from the District Inspector of Schools, as provided in Regulations 101 to 107 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The claim of petitioner has to be considered strictly within the parameter as set out by Division Bench of this Court, and the District Inspector of School will have to examine as to whether in the entire district of Gorakhpur incumbents are working against supernumerary posts; whether incumbents  from Dying in Harness quota are in queue; whether the post in question is meant for reserved category candidates and whether the post was to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst class IV eligible employee of the institution. Only in the event all these questions are answered in negative, then the claim of petitioner can be considered.

In the present case the view, which has been taken by the District Inspector of Schools in his decision dated 20.05.2006 is in the teeth of the directives contained in the aforementioned Division Bench judgment in the case of Jagdish Singh (2006) UPLBEC 2765, wherein it has been categorically held that prior approval has to be taken after selection proceeding is over, as such matter requires reconsideration.

It has also been contended that provisions of reservation have not been followed. In paragraphs 5 to 10 of the writ petition details of the vacancies and qua the incumbents, who were occupying the post has been given. Said statement of fact has not at all been disputed in the counter affidavit, as such the view, which has been mentioned for complying with the provisions of reservation, is totally vague and evasive. This facet of the order also requires consideration.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.05.2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to reconsider the matter as per observations made above.

26.03.2007

SRY.


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

Advertisement

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.