Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shiv Shashank Priya Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 5448 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 5737 (14 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).


Court No. 27

Writ Petition No.  5448 of 2000

Shiv Shashank Priya Srivastava                      Petitioner


State of U.P. & others.                                     Respondents


Hon. Vikram Nath,

Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated  23.10.1999, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, whereby he has declined to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the L.T. Grade. The only ground taken in the impugned order as well as counter affidavit is that Sri Chandra Mohan Lal Srivastava, who had been promoted from L.T. Grade to lecturer Grade was initially appointed in C.T. Grade which was declared a dying cadre and was merged in the  L.T. Grade, therefore, there would not be any vacancy on account of promotion of Chandra Mohan Lal Srivastava. The said reasoning of the District Inspector of Schools does not appear to be correct for the reason that upon the incumbents in the dying cadre merging with LT Grade would mean that  all such posts in C.T. Grade would stand upgraded to LT Grade. Merger does not mean grant of higher pay scale to individual , which is co- terminus with the service of the individual and, therefore, upon promotion of Chandra Mohan Lal Srivastava vacancy did arise in the L.T. Grade.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the District Inspector Of Schools is in fact biased and was passed in annoyance  in as much as the matter of the petitioner was earlier directed to be decided in the light of the direction of this Court but as no orders were passed and  he was summoned in a contempt proceeding by this Court that with annoyance he has passed the impugned order. Without going into said question even otherwise the order of the District Inspector of Schools can not be sustained as indicated above in the preceeding paragraph.

In these circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order of District Inspector of Schools dated 23.10.1999 is set aside and fresh direction is  issued to the District Inspector of Schools to pass appropriate orders with regard to the approval of the appointment of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Petition is accordingly allowed.

In case the District Inspector of Schools ultimately grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner he shall also pass appropriate order  with regard to payment of salary etc after verifying the fact as to whether the petitioner has actually worked or not.    

Dt. 14.11.2005

v.k.updh. (145)


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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.