Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHEETAL PRASAD BHARTIYA & ANOTHER versus D.I.O.D. ALLAHABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sheetal Prasad Bhartiya & Another v. D.I.O.D. Allahabad & Others - WRIT - A No. 13708 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 1209 (2 May 2005)

 

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

COURT NO. 32.

                   Writ Petition No.  13708 of 2000.

Sital Prasad Bhartiya & another                      Petitioners

                                   Vs.

District Inspector of Schools,

& Others                                                              Respondents.

       

                                 ******************

Hon. Vikram Nath, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.10.1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (II), Allahabad, refusing to grant financial approval on the ground that prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools as required under regulation 101 of Chapter 3 of the Regulations framed under the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has not been taken. Further in the order it is provided that Smt. Dayawati may be given appointment on compassionate basis against the said post.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior information was given to the District Inspector of Schools on 28.08.1998 intimating that two class IV posts had fallen vacant on account of retirement of Smt. Nanki Devi on 31.07.1998 and death of Nankoo of 26.07.1998, but no reply was received from the office of the District Inspector of Schools and as the work of the College was suffering after calling for names from Employment Exchange Allahabad on 05.04.1999 and, thereafter, after intimating the vacancy on the notice board calling for applications, the interview was held on 18.07.1998 in which 18 candidates appeared and petitioners names were recommended by the Selection Committee. They were accordingly given appointment on 18.08.1999.

It was further contended that prior intimation was given to the District Inspector of Schools and as such requirement of regulation 101 had been duly complied with. In the counter affidavit the averment in paragraph 4 of the writ petition are not denied. However a different stand has been taken, in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit. In paragraph 7 it is alleged that no advertisement regarding to the post was made by the Principal. In paragraph 8 it is alleged that no application was received and further since Smt. Dayawati had been sent for appointment on 30.07.1999, no appointment could be made against the said post, which was to be filed up by Smt. Dayawathi.

It may be noted that Smt. Dayawati filed an application for impleadment through Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, Advocate being Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. 12463 of 2001 subsequently this application was not pursued and was rejected on 13.09.2004. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Dayawati has been subsequently given appointment in Rama Devi Balika Inter College, Allahabad under order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 07.03.2002 and, therefore, she lost interest in this petition and did not pursue her impleadment application. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 07.03.2002 has been filed along with a supplementary affidavit.

Having considered the submissions and material available on record the ground taken by the District Inspector of Schools that prior approval was not taken cannot be sustained. Intimation was given about the vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools and this fact is not denied. The Principal is undisputedly the Appointing Authority to fill up these posts. The second ground taken by the District Inspector of Schools also does not flow from any statutory or legal requirement. No provision has been pointed out requiring such a procedure to be adopted.

In these circumstances the appointment of the petitioners have been wrongly not granted financial approval by the District Inspector of Schools. The petition is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 12.10.99 of the District Inspector of Schools is set aside. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to pass fresh orders with regard to the appointment of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and also grant arrears of salary etc. from the date of appointment as the petitioners have been working against substantive vacancies.

Dated: 02.05.2005.

v.k.updh. (v-80)


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.