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


Indra Deo Singh v. The District Inspector Of Schools, Azamgarh And Others - WRIT - A No. 3534 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 6556 (29 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.18.

Civil Misc.Writ Petiton no.3534 of 2004

Indradeo Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools & others


Hon'ble .A.P.Sahi,J.

Heard Sri Sanjiv singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.B.Pradhan, learned standing counsel for the respondents no.1 and 5 and Sri Indra Raj Singh,  who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3.

The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 17.11.2003, Annexure XIV to the writ petition, whereby the District Inspector of Schools has rejected the  claim of the petitioner  for the payment of salary and continuance  of a class IV  employee in the Institution known as Janta Vidyalaya Higher Secondary Schools, Mahaujpur District Azamgarh, which is an Institution recognised  by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed  thereunder.

The unfortunate carrier of the petitioner commenced with  his    inception in  the year 1968 and since then the petitioner is serving the Institution to the best of his ability. Unfortunately the respondent/ Institution did not favour him with such any appointment that had  the sanction of  law behind it. Ultimately, the petitioner approached  the District Inspector of Schools, who had issued necessary directions to the Management in view of the directions issued  by this court on 13.12.1996 in writ petition No.39427 of 1996 . Upon examining the state of affairs and  the claim of the petitioner, the District  Inspector of Schools, on 24.4.1998 issued a communication to the principal of the Institution  to consider the appointment  of the petitioner against a class IV post as  as his claim for appointment as class III post  was not found to be tenable.  The petitioner satisfied  himself with the aforesaid offer and the Principal  of the Institution  appointed the petitioner on 30.11.1999.  A  copy of the letter of appointment has been appended as Annexure V to the writ petition. The said appointment was approved  by the District  Inspector of Schools on 11.3.2002, copy whereof  is Annexure VI to the writ petition. A perusal of the said order of approval indicates that the District  Inspector of Schools had traced the entire history of the claim of the petitioner and thereafter accorded  the approval, which establishes that all the facts,  which are necessary  for the claim of the petitioner were in the knowledge of the District  Inspector of Schools and the respondents were  aware of these facts prior to 12.3.2002 and no fact was concealed by the Principal.

Later  on it is alleged that one Yogendra Singh , who  is arrayed as respondent no.4 alongwith his  associates  Narendera Kumar and Pramod Kumar, made some complaint  that the petitioner 's appointment  was contrary to law as it was done without taking notice of the provisions  of Reservation for  Schedule caste / Schedule .Tribe  candidate in the Institution. It is relevant to point out that none of three persons were interested persons and could not have been appointed in the Institution. The District  Inspector of Schools on 27..3.2002 i.e.  after sixteen days of the grant of approval, passed an order, staying his own order  dated 11.3.2002. During the pendency  of these proceedings before the District  Inspector of Schools an enquiry was also conducted  by Tahsil Prabhari and the District  Inspector of Schools accepted the said report, copy whereof is Annexure IX to the writ petition.  This acceptance is endorsed  on 14.4.2002 in the record maintained in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. After the aforesaid  enquiry, the payment of salary  was not being made  and ultimately the District  Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 17.11.2003 rejecting  the claim of the petitioner on three grounds. Firstly, the District  Inspector of Schools has recorded that the vacancy which is available in the Institution ought to have been filled up from amongst the Reserved category candidates, secondly, the  appointment  of the petitioner is not  in accordance with the Regulations 101 to 107 and thirdly, petitioner's claim was with regard  to the appointment as class III post, therefore, he could not have been considered for appointment as class IV post.

A counter affidavit  has been filed on behalf of the District  Inspector of Schools as also on behalf of the Principal of the Institution.

The counter affidavit on behalf of the Principal has been filed by one Surendra Singh, who occupied the post of Principal in  an officiating capacity in the year 2002 i.e much after the appointment  and approval  of the petitioner,  The said counter affidavit states that the appointment of the petitioner  was invalid as it was done without following the procedure prescribed in the advertisement and under the Regulations. It has also been urged that since there is no Schedule caste candidate,  the post in question  ought to have been filled up from amongst the S.C. candidate,  the  petitioner could not be appointed  as he was of general category.  It has further been stated  therein that the petitioner's claim  has been rejected and the District  Inspector of Schools  has acted without jurisdiction in not considering the claim of the petitioner  as a class IV employee.

A counter affidavit  has been filed on behalf of the State through Sri R.B.Maurya , Associate District  Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. A reply to the same has also been filed in the form of a rejoinder affidavit.

Having heard  the learned counsel for the parties, the point   that emerges  is   the question of Reservation and the availability  of the reserved category candidate in the Institution. The petitioner has categorically stated in para 20 of the writ petition  that out of seven post all six posts are being occupied  by the members of Reserve category out of which Kalpnath Ram is Schedule caste  and Mahendra Ram Chamar  is of Schedule caste, whereas  the rest five belong  to back- ward category. Reply to the said para 20 in the counter affidavit  of the District  Inspector of Schools, does not deny  these specific allegations in respect of the candidates, who are occupying the said posts. A bold  denial  without any details is vague. The impugned order no where records  the aforesaid fact, nor there is any consideration of the fact stated by the petitioner  in this respect. On the contrary the report of Tahsil Prabhari , which was accepted  by the District  Inspector of Schools, a copy whereof has been appended as Annexure IX to the writ petition, supports the case  set up by  the  petitioner.  Under these circumstances, non consideration of such material  vitiates the impugned order. It is further relevant to point out  that  learned standing counsel could not dispute the aforesaid position on the strength  of the averments contained in the counter affidavit.

Sri Indraraj Singh has tried to invite the attention of the court to the other facts that since the District Inspector of Schools has been unable to meet the aforesaid stand, the stand of Principal cannot be accepted. It is by now well settled that only 50% post can be filled by promotion from amongst  the candidates belonging to Schedule caste/ Schedule tribe  category. In this view of the matter more than 50% of the posts are being occupied by back ward category and the Distt Inspector of Schools has completely over looked the aspect of the matter and, therefore,  the impugned order is liable to set aside on this ground.

The second ground taken by the respondent  is non consideration of regulations 101 to 107 also cannot stand the test of scrutiny inasmuch as the appointment of the petitioner  was approved  by the District  Inspector of Schools after  recording certain   directions were issued in this regard.     In these circumstances,  there was no occasion  for the District  Inspector of Schools  to have reviewed the matter without recording   as to what fact was concealed or any fact was misrepresented by the petitioner.  The impugned  order passed by the District  Inspector of Schools no where indicates that any such ingredient existed. The argument  that certain facts were concealed is therefore, without any basis and as such  the aforesaid stand taken  by the respondent deserves to be rejected.

The third ground taken  is that  since the petitioner has staked  his claim for being appointed as class III employee, therefore, his  appointment as class IV employee cannot be sustained  is  a totally misconceived approach inasmuch once the petitioner has been appointed and approved as class IV employee, no question arises for considering his claim  as  a class III employee.

The impugned order is unsustainable in law in view of the aforesaid facts.

Even otherwise, the petitioner is also almost 54 years of age and is at the  fag end of his career and to put  him out of employment would be causing injustice to him.

This aspect has been considered by this Court on 6.5.2005 in a Division Bench  matter  ( Special Appeal No. 569 of 2005, Lal Chand Ram & others Vs. Director, Ayurvedic & Unani Services U.P. Lucknow wherein the following observations  have been made :

'The appointment letters were issued to the appellants but their services were terminated later on after holding of an enquiry  as to the propriety  of the selection process .

There was a certain amount of doubt cast upon the appointment from very beginning as the appellants were not paid salary from the inception. They have been getting salary recently on the basis of interim orders passed by  Court.

It is possible by applying the strict batter of the law to dismiss the appeal. The appellants are not entitled as a matter of right to a hearing when the entirety of the selection process is under review. As such the cancellation of the totality without hearing the appellants was not illegal. Furthermore, the letters dated 12.2.1995, 23.2.1995 are surely  under a cloud, perhaps a very thick cloud of doubt.

All these are against the appellants, but one thing to our mind is very much in their favour. If there was fraud by some body for the purpose  of taking these appellants in as class IV employees, they were not  the initiating or primary parties  to that fraud themselves. This again perhaps brings them under some sort of cloud as they are participators in a procedure which is not quite strict.

Everything is against  the appellants. But the class IV wages feed eight families. It is very difficult in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of this case to find that we should replace these eights sweepers  by eights others and in the aforesaid process seriously disrupt eight families and their rotis.

We were told when very young law is good but justice is better. On that principle, with the greatest of respect  with the Hon'ble Judge who decided the writ matter perfectly legally, the appeal is allowed .The order impugned is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The services of the appellants  shall be confirmed and continued  They will be paid  arrears and benefits  as expeditiously as possible, if those remain  outstanding, in any event within two months from the date hereof."

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and conclusion  drawn  herein above, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 17.11.2003 and 27.3.2002 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising out of the approval  dated 11.3.2002. The arrears of salary shall also be paid to the petitioner within three months and the petitioner shall be entitled to the  current salary forthwith.

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.




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.