High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Director Of Education U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 51711 of 1999  RD-AH 3701 (29 September 2005)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 51711 OF 1999
Rajesh Kumar Singh
Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad and others
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.12.1999 , Annexure-11 to the writ petition passed by the District Inspector of schools and further for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as L.T. Grade teacher and to pay the salary.
The case of the petitoner is that on the basis of the death of one Deo Sharan Misra who was working as a L.T. grade Teacher and died suddenly, therefore, a vacancy had taken place. The vacancy was notified to the Commission through District Inspector of Schools for appointment but as no appointment was made, therefore, in the interest of students, the vacancy was notified in the two newspapers i.e. ''Northern India Patrika' and ''Amrit Prabhat' on 14.1.1998. The petitioner was eligible therefore, he made an application and duly constituted Selection Committee considered him and an appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.2.1998. The petitioner joined the said post on 20.2.1998. As required all the relevant papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for granting an approval to the appointment of the petitioner for payment of Salary. But the District Inspector of Schools passed no orders. As such the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing Writ petition no. 30337 of 1998 which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 18.9.1998 directing the respondents i.e. District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation of the petitioner regarding payment of salary. Respondent no.4 on the basis of the representation filed on behalf of the petitioner has considered the case of the petitioner after giving full opportunity to the management as well as obtaining the comments from the Finance Officer passed a detailed and reasoned order approving the appointment of the petitioner for purposes of payment of salary. The District Inspector of Schools passed the said order on 22.10.1999,which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The petitoner submits that the said order dated 22.10.1999 has been reviewed by respondent no.4 and the respondent no.4 has passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitoner by its order dated 1.12.1999,Annexure-11 to the writ petition Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has approached this Court.
While entertaining the writ petition the operation of the order dated 1.12.1999 was stayed by this Court on 14.12.1999 and the respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It has been stated in para 5 of the said counter affidavit that the appointment of the petitoner is wholly illegal and without any authority as the Committee of Management has got no power to make any appointment on adhoc basis. It has also been stated that the petitoner is not working; therefore, respondent no.4 was justified in reviewing its earlier order dated 22.10.1999.
The petitoner contends that the order of approval of the petitioner for payment of salary was passed after hearing the petitioner as well as the Committee of Management and the appointment of the petitioner was approved. The order impugned has been passed without any notice of show cause and opportunity to the petitioner, as such the same is against the principles of natural justice. Further submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent no.4 has got no authority in law to review its order unless and until it is established that the order of approval has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. As the order of respondent no.4 has been passed without any notice or opportunity to the petitoner, as such the same is liable to beset aside.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel and have also perused the record. The Standing Counsel is not in a position to submit before this Court that the earlier order approving the appointment of the petitioner-dated 22.10.1999 has been obtained by the petitioner by misrepresentation. From the order of the respondent no.4 it is also clear that no finding to this effect has been recorded by respondent no.4 that the earlier order by which the appointment of the petitioner has been approved, has been obtained by the petitoner by misrepresentation or playing fraud on the authority. From the order it is also not clear that on whose instigation respondent no.4 has reviewed the order. As the order-dated 1.12.1999 has been passed without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner, the same is liable to be quashed.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the order-dated 1.12.1999 is hereby quashed and the petitioner is entitled for salary. It would however be open to respondent no.4 to pass any order after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.