High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sanjai Mani Tripathi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 23848 of 2007  RD-AH 9674 (21 May 2007)
Court No. 39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23848 of 2007
Sanjai Mani Tripathi
State of U.P and others
In the present case, contention of the petitioner is that one Sri Srinarain Pandey who has been working as L.T. Grade teacher was promoted on adhoc basis as lecturer in English and consequently, a short term vacancy occurred in the institution. Petitioner submits that he was one of the candidate in the said selection proceedings and on the basis of quality point mark petitioner was entitled to be selected as Assistant Teacher in the said resultant vacancy. Petitioner submits that papers were transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools and District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order and one Satish Chandra Pandey filed writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40318 of 2003 has been filed and said writ petition was allowed and District Inspector of Schools was directed to pass fresh order. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to pass fresh order and has accorded approval to the appointment of Satish Chandra Pandey. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Sri D.N. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that District Inspector of Schools in the present case has not taken any exercise whatsoever to see as to whether appointment of Satish Chandra Pandey has been made in consonance with the provision as contained under Second Removal of Difficulties Order and straight away without taking any exercise, approval order has been passed and in the event in case any exercise would have been undertaken then on the basis of quality point marks it was the petitioner who has to be offered appointment, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Sri W.H. Khan appearing for contesting respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel have contended that reasons are there and as far as petitioner is concerned he was not all applicant in the said selection proceedings as such his claim is misconceived . However they have contended that they will not file any counter affidavit and the writ petition be finally decided on the basis of averments mentioned in the writ petition and impugned order.
After respective arguments have been advanced undisputed factual position which is emerging is to the effect that against resultant vacancy of Sri Narain Pandey Satish Chandra Pandey, respondent no. 5 claims to have been appointed. Petitioner claims that he has also applied for consideration of his claim and his merit status is much higher in comparison to Satish Chandra Pandey. In the present case pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 22.08.2006 District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to consider the matter and impugned order does not reflect that any exercise whatsoever has been undertaken as to whether appointment of Satish Chandra Pandey has ever been made in consonance with the provisions as contained in Second Removal of Difficulties Order. Impugned order reflects that District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to mention that on re-examination it is apparent that appointment of Satish Chandra Pandey is valid and liable to be approved. This observation clearly establishs that no objective consideration whatsoever has been made by the District Inspector of Schools to show that as to whether appointment of respondent no. 5 has been made strictly in consonance with the provisions as contained in Second Removal of Difficulties Order. District Inspector of Schools has not cared to see as to whether appointment fulfils the criteria/parameter and standard prescribed for being considered as valid appointment as per Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada Vs. Committee of Management, V.D.G I. College, and others reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551. In the present case fact of the matter is that no exercise whatsoever has been undertaken as such order dated 02.03.2007 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Deoria is hereby quashed and set aside and the District Inspector of Schools is directed to reconsider the matter strictly as per parameter provided for under Second Removal of Difficulties Order and as per judgment in the case of Km. Radha Raizada Vs. Committee of Management, V.D.G I. College, and others reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 and should also record finding on the front as to whether short term appointee is entitled to be continued, after the vacancy in question is converted to substantive vacancy the District Inspector of Schools shall also examine the claim of the petitioner; as to whether petitioner was one of the applicant in the aforesaid selection proceedings or not. Needless to say that the order which would be passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria shall contain and indicate reason and be passed after providing opportuinty of hearing to the Management of the institution, Satish Chandra Pandey, and petitioner preferably within ten weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
With the above direction present writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
Dated 21st May, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.