Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BACHCHOO SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bachchoo Singh v. State of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 37991 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 5499 (10 November 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.6

 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.     37991        of 2002

Bachchoo Singh..........................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others........................................Respondents.

********

Hon.Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard Sri Pankaj Mithal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. the learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, Sri R.S.Sharma, Advocate for the Committee of Management and Sri Vashistha Tiwari for respondent no.3, namely, the principal of the institution.

It transpires that by an order dated 6.11.1999 permission was granted by the District Inspector of Schools to fill up all the Class-IV post which occurred in the institution. On this basis, an advertisement dated 7.11.1999 was  issued  inviting  applications  for appointment of a Class-IV employee  in  the  institution. It transpires that the petitioner was selected and an appointment order dated 22.11.1999 was issued. The papers with regard to the appointment of the petitioner was forwarded by the Principal to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of financial approval which was granted by an order dated 10.1.2000. The petitioner since then is continuously working as a Class-IV employee. By an order dated 13.8.2002 the approval  granted by the District Inspector of Schools has been revoked and on this basis the Principal issued an order of termination dated 16.8.2002 terminating the services of the petitioner. Consequently the present writ petition has been filed for the quashing the order dated 13.8.2002, passed by the District Inspector of Schools and consequential order of termination dated 16.8.2002 passed by the Principal.

The District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order has stated that neither permission nor an approval of the appointment of the petitioner could have been granted by the then District Inspector of Schools on account of the fact that the State had issued a ban order on the appointment by direct recruitment by G.O. Dated 3.11.1997 and 9.7.1998. Consequently, no permission could have been granted by the District Inspector of Schools nor any appointment could have been made nor financial approval could have been granted by the District Inspector of Schools.

In my view, the District Inspector of Schools  could not have reviewed its order and revoked its approval on this ground.  If the permission was issued inspite of the ban order, it still could not have been withdrawn unless the respondents alleged that it was issued malafidely. In the present case no such averments have been made. From the perusal of the record it appears that the permission was granted by the District Inspector of Schools bonafidely by an order dated 6.11.1999 and based on that, an advertisement was made and thereafter an appointment order was issued and financial approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools vide order  dated 10.1.2000. Consequently, in my opinion, the mere fact that a ban order has been issued, the same could not be a ground for revoking a valid appointment.

There is another aspect of the matter, the appointment in an educational institution on a Class-IV post is made on the basis of the provisions contained in the Intermediate Education Act, the Rules and the Regulations framed therein. The State Government cannot by an executive order issue an omnimus, order impose a blanket direction, stopping the appointment by direct recruitment which are required to be made under the Act, Rules and Regulations. If appointments are to be stopped, a provision has to be incorporated under the Act and a ban order could not be issued on the basis of a Government Order. Consequently, I hold that the Government Orders dated 3.11.1997 and 9.7.1998 are arbitrary and is quashed accordingly.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.8.2002 issued by the District Inspector of Schools  and the consequential order dated 16.8.2002 issued by the Principal are quashed.

The impugned orders were stayed by the interim order dated 9.9.2002 passed by this Court which was extended from time to time. Based on the interim order, the petitioner was allowed to continue as a Class-IV employee. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner if he was allowed to continue, would be entitled to payment of wages for that period.

Dated:10.11.2005

AKJ.


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.