High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Dinesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 44692 of 2003  RD-AH 8132 (1 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44692 of 2003
State of U.P. & others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Brief facts of this case are that on the adhoc promotion of one L.T. grade teacher to the post of Lecturer made on 15.3.1997, one short term vacancy in L.T. grade occurred in the Janta Inter College (respondent no. 3). On the basis of resolution passed by the Committee of Management, the said short term vacancy was advertised in two daily newspapers. In response thereto the petitioner and other candidates applied. The Selection Committee constituted by the Committee of Management selected the petitioner for appointment on such post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade. Pursuant thereto an appointment letter dated 6.4.1997 was issued in favour of the petitioner. The papers relating to the appointment of the petitioner were sent by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools on 24.4.1997. The District Inspector of Schools called for certain queries from the Committee of Management vide his communication dated 29.11.1997. In response thereto, on 30.3.1998, the Committee of Management replied to the queries of the District Inspector of Schools but when no orders were passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7971 of 2001, which was disposed of on 1.3.2001 with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to take final decision, in accordance with law, on the question of grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 5.6.2003 refusing to grant such approval, which is impugned in this writ petition. A further prayer has been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of salary, alongwtih arrears with effect from 6.4.1997.
I have heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Digvijai Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Committee of Management of the College, 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 this stage.
A perusal of the order dated 5.6.2003 goes to show that after narration of facts, without any discussion with regard to the merits of the case, in the end the District Inspector of Schools has merely stated that since there was ban imposed on appointments by the Committee of Management from 6.8.1993, hence the appointment of the petitioner could not be approved, and consequently the payment of salary under the Act of 1971 could also not be made. The District Inspector of Schools has not found the appointment of the petitioner to be otherwise invalid or not in accordance with law. The only ground for refusal to grant such approval is because of certain ban which is said to have been imposed by the State Government with effect from 6.8.1993. Although it is the specific case of the petitioner that there was no such ban imposed and that the appointment had been made in terms of the procedure for filling up short term vacancies in accordance with the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 1981, no such order of the Government imposing any such ban has been filed alongwith the counter affidavit. It is not the case of the respondents that compliance of Second Removal of Difficulties Order of 1981 had not been made while making the appointment of the petitioner. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that on account of adhoc promotion of L.T. Grade teacher to the post of Lecturer, a short term vacancy had occurred. Such averments made have also not been denied in the counter affidavit.
In such view of the matter, in the absence of the respondents having been able to place on record any such order by which ban on the appointment of teachers by the Committee of Management had been imposed by the State Government, the reason for not granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner does not appear to be justified. Since the District Inspector of Schools has not found any procedural irregularity in making the appointment of the petitioner by the Committee of Management, in my view, the order dated 5.6.2003 disapproving the appointment of the petitioner deserves to be set aside.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 5.6.2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is quashed and it is directed that the District Inspector of Schools shall pass fresh appropriate orders with regard to the approval of the appointment of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.