High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sanadan Patel v. D.I.O.S. & Others - WRIT - A No. 48721 of 2002  RD-AH 10909 (4 July 2006)
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 21.12.2001 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj, Annexure-11 to the writ petition and further for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the regular salary on the basis of which the petitioner is working from1.8.2001.
The facts arising out of the writ petition are that there is Maharajganj Intermediate College, Maharajganj which is being run by the Committee of Management and is a recognized and aided institution. One Shiv Sagar Prasad was a permanent Assistant Clerk in the institution and retired from service on 31.3.2001. Due to the retirement of the aforesaid person, a substantive vacancy for the post of Assistant Clerk has taken place. A communication to this effect was given to the District Inspector of Schools by the Committee of Management but no response was given by the District Inspector of Schools. Then an advertisement on 14.7.2001 was published in the newspaper for the purpose of selection and appointment as Assistant Teacher. On 30.7.2001, the selection proceeding was conducted and the petitioner being the best suitable candidate was selected and an appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner on 31.7.2001. The petitioner joined the said post on 1.8.2001
As provided all the relevant papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for granting an approval. The District Inspector of Schools made certain queries and the same was replied to. The petitioner submits that in spite of the aforesaid fact no orders were passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Then by the order-dated 21.12.2001 the District Inspector of Schools has passed an order against the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that he has submitted an application on the basis of the order dated 21.12.2001 but no orders have been passed. The petitioner has come up before this Court for quashing the order dated 21.12.2001.
The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the proper procedure as provided has been followed and the query sought by the District Inspector of Schools have already been replied and it was proved before the authorities that the appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with law on a substantive vacancy taking into consideration the reservation policy.
The respondents were granted time to file a counter affidavit and a counter affidavit has been filed. The Standing Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that there is no rejection of the appointment of the petitioner and certain queries had been sought and it has been stated that the appointment be made strictly in accordance with the Government Orders and proper procedure be followed during selection. If the procedure is not followed, then the authority will be compelled to initiate action, meaning thereby it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that no order rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been passed. If the Committee of Management or the petitioner is able to show on the basis of document that the appointment of the petitioner is on a substantive clear vacancy after following the proper procedure and policy of reservation then there is no occasion for the District Inspector of Schools to pass the appropriate orders. The Standing Counsel has further submitted that Annexure-12 dated 6.4.2002 clearly goes to show that the petitioner has sought the alleged complaint of one Vipin Srivastava. The said application as stated by the petitioner is still pending. As such no cause of action has arisen and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel and have also perused the record. From the perusal of the order dated 21.12.2001 which has been passed by respondent District Inspector of Schools intimating the management that no appointment in violation of the rules and Government Orders be made. If any appointment is made, the action will be taken against the Committee of Management. It appears that the said order has been communicated to the Committee of Management on the basis of one complaint made by one Vipin Srivastava. If the Committee of Management is aggrieved by this order, they can submit the relevant documents before the authorities showing therein that the appointment of the petitioner is in accordance with law and reservation policy has been followed. Then the District Inspector of Schools should have passed some orders either in favour or against the petitioner. The petitioner without submitting all the relevant papers has approached this Court.
In view of the aforesaid fact the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction that if the petitioner submits all the relevant documents before respondent no.1 relating to his appointment and the Committee of Management also submits all the relevant documents, respondent no.1 is directed to pass the appropriate orders according to law after consideration of the relevant record preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of the representation relating to the appointment of the petitioner. No order as to costs.
W.P.No.48721 of 2002
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.