Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAKESH CHANDRA YADAV versus JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION VARANASI & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rakesh Chandra Yadav v. Joint Director Of Education Varanasi & Others - WRIT - A No. 38483 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 7934 (27 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. 38483 of 2000

Rakesh Chandra Yadav Vs. Joint Director of Education

Varanasi Division, Varanasi

and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard Sri Yogesh Agrawal and Sri Kripa Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1, 2 and 3. Despite time having been granted in the year 2000, steps to serve the respondent no.4 have not been taken by the petitioner. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no.1, 2 and 3 has been filed to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

It is the case of the petitioner that in response to an advertisement/notice issued by respondent no.4, Committee of Management on 20.11.1998, the petitioner had applied and was selected and appointment letter was given on 1.12.1998. Pursuance thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had joined on the post of Assistant Teacher in the L.T.Grade in the College of respondent no.4 on 2.12.1998. The petitioner contends that approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 27.10.1999. Since the petitioner was not being paid his salary, he has filed this writ petition with a prayer for mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner month by month and also not to interfere in the working of the petitioner. The said letter of approval dated 27.10.1999 has been filed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. The assertions made in the writ petition has been categorically denied by the respondents and it has been clearly stated that no such approval was granted by the office of the District Inspector of Schools. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that there was no vacancy in the College of respondent no.4 on which appointment could be made in favour of the petitioner. However, in the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that there was vacancy and, thus, the appointment of the petitioner was valid.

No copy of the advertisement alleged to have been published in the newspaper has been filed nor even the name of the newspaper in which the advertisement was published, has been given. In the writ petition, merely the copy of the notice which is said to have been pasted on notice board has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. It has not been mentioned as to whether any selection process was adopted and on what basis the appointment was given to the petitioner or as to how many persons had applied in response to the said notice. In view of the fact that the respondents have categorically stated that no such approval as claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition, had ever been granted by the District Inspector of Schools, in my view, the appointment made by the Committee of Management appears to be false and the papers have been fabricated only for the purposes of this writ petition. Thus, the prayer made in this writ petition for direction to the State-respondent to pay salary to the petitioner does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in case if the petitioner wants, he may claim salary from the Committee of Management, respondent no.4 after proving that he was duly appointed by them. It is, however, made clear that the said payment shall be made from the own fund of the institution and not from the State Exchequer.

Dt/-27.4.2007

Ru

               


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.