Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH versus THE D.I.O.S., ALLD. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shailendra Kumar Singh v. The D.I.O.S., Alld. And Another - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 846 of 2001 [2002] RD-AH 42 (27 September 2002)

 

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

Hon. C.J.'s Court.

Special Appeal No. 2001 of 2001

Shailendra Kumar Singh  Vs. The District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad & Ors.

___________

Hon. S.K. Sen, C.J.

Hon. R.K. Agrawal, J.  

Heard Shri K.C. Sinha learned advocate assisted by Shri A.C. Tiwari learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ran Vijay Singh learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant writ petitioner has been dismissed.

The learned Single Judge has found that the petitioner was not appointed by a validly constituted selection committee as provided under sub-section 9 of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act 1982(hereinafter referred to as the Act)as substituted by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Second Amendment) Act, 1992.

The contention of Shri K.C. Sinha learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management and in view of Section 33-C of the Act as amended by U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Amendment) 1998, he is entitled for regularisation.  

It is not disputed that the petitioner was not appointed by the selection committee mentioned in sub-section 9 of Section 18 of the act Thus, the appointment of the appellant cannot be said to have been made in accordance with law. Further, the State Government is liable to pay the salary for those teachers who are appointed in accordance with law and not to such persons who have been appointed by the Committee of Management contrary to the provisions of law. Thus, the appellant has rightly been held to be not entitled for salary from the State Exchequer.

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sohan Singh and another vs. The District Inspector of Schools, Pauri Garhwal and others reported in 2000(1) E.S.C.606 (All.). This decision is of no help to the petitioner in as much as in that case the appointment of the teacher concerned was not in dispute and the petitioner therein was only seeking regularisation under Section 33-C of the Act.  

According to the appellant, he has worked in the College. The appellant may claim salary from the Committee of Management of the College.  

In view of the foregoing discussions, the special appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

DT: 27.9.2002.

Iss/-


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.