Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHEETESHWAR NATH & ANOTHER versus DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BALLIA & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Cheeteshwar Nath & Another v. District Inspector Of Schools Ballia & Others - WRIT - A No. 35001 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 11586 (17 July 2006)

 

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

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the writ petition the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the order dated 14.8.2001 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Annexure-12 to the writ petition.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners worked as class-IV employees on the basis of the appointments given by the Committee of Management in 1981. When the institution came in grant in aid the salary to the petitioners was not paid. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court as Writ Petition No.42044 of 2000. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 29.9.2000 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass a detailed and reasoned order. On the basis of the order passed by this Court the order dated 14.8.2001 has been passed by respondent no.1 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for the purpose of payment of salary.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners as well as the Committee of Management is not able to prove regarding sanction of the posts on which the petitioners are working. A finding to this effect has also been recorded that the appointing authority of class- IV is the Principal of the institution but the appointment of the petitioners are by the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management has been given sufficient opportunity by the respondents to prove regarding sanction of the posts. The petitioners as well as the Committee of Management were not able to prove that the postss on which the petitioners are working have ever been sanctioned by the competent authority. The Manager of the institution by his letter dated 10.8.2001 has informed that there is no provision for sanction of any post in the Sanskrit Vidyalaya and neither there is any competent authority to do so. On the basis of the aforesaid relevant document, repsodentno.1 has come to the conclusion that as the appointment of the petitioners are on the posts which have not been sanctioned by the competent authority, therefore, there cannot be any burden on the State for the purpose of payment of salary.

It is well settled that no right can be accrued to a person if his appointment is on the post, which is not sanctioned. The petitioners cannot be said to be appointed on the posts, which were ever sanctioned by the competent authority.

In view of the aforesaid fact, in my opinion there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondents.  The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

17.7.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P.  35001of 2002


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.