High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raj Kumar Tiwari v. The State Of U.P. Thru' The Secretary And Others - WRIT - A No. 23948 of 2007  RD-AH 9661 (21 May 2007)
Court No. 39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23948 of 2007
Raj Kumar Tiwari
State of U.P and others
Earlier petitioner claiming himself to be class IV employee had approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63431 of 2006 (Raj Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others). This Court make mention that payment of salary can be directed only if it is found that appointment is made in accordance with law on the sanctioned post and liberty was given to the petitioner to represent the matter and thereafter representation was to be decided by means of reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as Principal of the institution. Thereafter matter has been taken up and District Inspector of Schools has decided the matter on 22.03.2007. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Sri Rajiv Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad has totally misdirected himself while passing the order and issue in question has not at all been decided and adjudicated in its correct prospective and Principal of the institution has never been summoned as such impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that cogent reasons have been given and non of the legal right of the petitioner are infringed, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case is to the effect that pursuant to directives issued by this Court the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to considered the claim which has been set up by the petitioner.
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jadgish Singh etc. Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2006) UPLBEC 2765 has taken the view that no appointment against Class III or Class IV post can be made unless and until approval is not accorded.
Here in the present case till date approval has not been accorded and the matter of grant of approval was to be adverted to by the District Inspector of Schools. Before the District Inspector of Schools , member of Selection Committee who are alleged to have taken interview of the petitioner had given in writing that they were not present in the selection proceedings and further Principal of the institution has also given in writing that he has not issued any appointment letter in favour of the petitioner and same does not bears his signature. Taking into account all these facts circumstances the appointment of petitioner has been found to be an outcome of ingenuine proceedings. Once authorities who had made appointment themselves have chosen to disown the proceedings in favour of the petitioner then in this back drop of the matter, as far as petitioner is concerned he cannot make any legitimate grievance, as mere selection does not confer any right.
In these circumstances this Court refuses to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Dated 21st May, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.