Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRA BHAN SINGH & ANOTHER versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chandra Bhan Singh & Another v. Director Of Education & Others - WRIT - A No. 4363 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 7740 (26 April 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.31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4363 of 2001

Chandra Bhan Singh and another

Versus

Director of Education and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The petitioners no. 1 and 2 were appointed on Class IV posts as Chaukidar by the Principal of the respondent no. 3-College in the years 1987 and 1990 respectively and they continued to work without break. However, the payment of salary of the petitioners was being made from the own fund of the management and not under the grant-in-aid scheme. When the vacancies occurred on the sanctioned Class IV posts in the year 1999, the Principal of the College sought approval of the Director of Education for making such appointment, which was granted by the Director of Education on 25.4.2000. In pursuance thereof, the college advertised the vacancies and after due selection, the petitioners were selected for appointment on Class IV posts and one Smt. Manna was selected on the post of Sweeper. The papers with regard to the selection of the petitioners and Smt. Manna were forwarded by the respondent no. 3, the Principal of the College to the Director of Education on 19.6.2000. By order dated 30.8.2000 the approval to the appointment of Smt. Manna, on the post of Sweeper, was granted by the Director of Education. However, on 16.8.2000, the respondent no. 1, the Director of Education refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.8.2000, this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners and to pay them salary on Class IV posts, as was being done in the case of the similarly situated candidate Smt. Manna.

I have heard Sri G.N.Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Madhu Tandon on behalf of the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that approval to the appointment of another similarly situated person Smt. Manna, whose selection was made alongwith the petitioner, has been granted approval whereas for no valid reason, the approval to the selection and appointment of the petitioners has been rejected.

On perusal of the impugned order dated 16.8.2000 it appears that the approval has been rejected on the basis of technicalities as it has been stated that the appointment has been made on the post of Chaukidar whereas the vacancies were on the post of peon. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to show that there was any classification made for appointment on Class IV post. The vacancy was of Class IV post and the appointments had also been made on Class IV posts. As such, this ground alone cannot form basis for not granting approval to the appointment of the petitioners. There is no fault found in the selection process by which the petitioners have been selected. It has merely been stated that compliance of Statute 25.06 (4) of the  University Statutes has not been made which provides for calling of names from the Employment Exchange.

In the present case, the petitioners have been working with the college for more than a decade. Prior to the selection and appointment on the sanctioned Class IV posts under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, the college had no complaint against the work and conduct of the petitioners. The selection of the petitioners had been made after advertisement and through the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the order disapproving the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Chaukidar does not appear to be justified, inasmuch as the appointment of similarly situated candidate Smt. Manna, also on Class IV post, has been duly approved without taking such technical objection of non-compliance of Statute 25.06 (4), which has been considered only in the case of the petitioners. As such, in my view, the order dated 16.8.2000 passed by the respondent no. 1, the Director of Education (Higher Education), Uttar Pradesh Shiksha Degree Vikas Anubhag, Allahabad deserves to be set aside as the appointment of the petitioners deserved to have been approved.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 16.8.2001 passed by the respondent no. 1, the Director of Education (Higher Education), Uttar Pradesh Shiksha Degree Vikas Anubhag, Allahabad is quahsed. The Director of Education, respondent no. 1 is directed to pass fresh orders with regard to the approval to the appointment of the petitioners on Class IV post, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The same may be done within a month from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent no. 1.

No costs.  

Dt/-26.4.2007

PS

                         


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.