High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Harihar Singh v. Director Of Education Deptt. (Madhyamik) & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 11134 of 2002  RD-AH 8639 (8 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11134 of 2002
Director of Education Department (Madhyamik), U.P. at Allahabad and others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.2.2002 passed by the Director of Education (Madhyamik), respondent no. 1 whereby approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Economics has been refused.
I have heard Sri A.K. Malviya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
The case of the petitioner is that in response to an advertisement dated 1.9.1992 issued by the Committee of Management of the College (which has not been impleaded as a respondent) for filling up vacancies of Lecturer in Economics as well as other subjects, the petitioner had applied and after selection he was given appointment by the Committee of Management on 27.12.1992. According to the petitioner, the papers relating to his appointment were forwarded on 28.12.1992 to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of approval. In pursuance of the appointment letter dated 27.12.1992, the petitioner joined on 1.1.1993 as Lecturer in the institution in question. The petitioner claims that he continued to work as Lecturer but since he was not paid his salary, he filed Writ Petition No. 5737 of 2001 (which was after more than 8 years) for payment of his salary. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.2.2001 with the direction to the Director of Education to decide the matter regarding approval to the appointment of the petitioner and also to record his finding as to whether the papers alleged to have been sent by the Committee of Management on 28.12.1992 had been received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, and if so then why the matter was kept pending for more than 8 years. When no decision was taken by the Director of Education, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in which notices were issued to the respondent no. 1. However, then vide the impugned order dated 28.2.2002, the Director of Education rejected the claim of the petitioner and refused to grant approval to his appointment.
The petitioner has not been able to explain as to why, despite not being paid salary for more than 8 years, he kept quiet and for the first time filed a writ petition only in the year 2001. Further, the petitioner is claiming approval of his appointment in an institution which has not even been impleaded as a respondent. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the papers relating to the appointment of the petitioner, alleged to have been sent by the Committee of Management of the institution to the District Inspector of Schools on 28.12.1992, were never received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. If at all, it would be the Committee of Management alone which could have come forward to prove that the said papers had actually been sent to the District Inspector of Schools. In the absence of the Committee of Management being arrayed as a party in this writ petition, the said finding given by the Director of Education cannot be set aside.
Even otherwise, the specific case is that at the time of sanction of additional four posts of Lecturer in the institution in question (which included the post of Lecturer in Economics) it was specifically provided that the post of Lecturer in English would be filled up by direct recruitment, whereas the post of Lecturers in Economics, History and Social Science would be filled up by promotion from amongst the L.T. Grade teachers. The case of the petitioner is that the post of Lecturer in Economics was initially filled up by promotion of Sri Jwala Prasad Singh and since thereafter he was promoted as adhoc Principal, the post of Lecturer in Economics fell vacant and the same was to be filled up by the Committee of Management under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. Even if that be so, then too the petitioner has not filed any document to show that intimation to the District Inspector of Schools or approval from the said authority had ever been taken for filling up the post on adhoc basis. It is surprising that the Committee of Management would fill the post and appoint a person of its choice and ask the State Government to make payment of salary of such Lecturer without even taking permission from the educational authorities to fill up such post or without even giving any intimation to such authorities who would ultimately be liable for payment of salary. In view of the same not having been done, for this reason also I do not find any good ground for interference in this writ petition.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.