Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURAJ versus DISTRICT JUDGE MAINPURI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suraj v. District Judge Mainpuri - WRIT - A No. 32022 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 11746 (18 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

Court no. 26

Civil Misc. writ Petition No. 30022 of 2002

------

Dev Dutt

Versus

District Inspector of Schools and others

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.6.2002, Annexure-10 to the writ petition passed by respondent no.2.

The facts arising out of the writ petition are that Lokman Das Ganpat Swaroop Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Airakhera, Mathura is a recognized institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and is also governed by the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to the Teachers and other Employees) Act 1971. Two teachers of LT Grade namely Bhagwat Swaroop Misra and Mahabir Singh Verma retired on 30.6.1988 and 30.6.1990 respectively. The two posts of LT Grade teachers were created by Director of Education -Vide his order-dated 31.3.1991 for Science and Biology. Copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid fact there were four vacancies in existence for making appointments. A requisition to this effect was sent to the Commission for making the appointment but as no appointments were made, as such an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 30.5.1992 and the Selection Committee was constituted and on the basis of quality point marks the petitioner was found suitable and was appointed as LT Grade teacher. It is also mentioned that three other persons namely Ratan Singh, Mahesh Chandra Kaushik and Krishna Kant Sharma were also appointed by the said resolution dated 28.6.1992. In pursuance of the said resolution the appointment letter was issued and the relevant papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for granting an approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools has not passed any order as such the petitioner as well as other candidates filed separate writ petitioners before this Court. The writ petition filed by Sri Krishan Kant Sharma (No. 10399 of 1994 was disposed of finally vide its judgment dated 16.9.1997. In pursuance of the order passed in the said writ petition the District Inspect of Schools granted an approval to the appointment of Sri Machesh Chandra Kaushik and Sri Krishan Kant Sharma-vide his order-dated 27.2.1998. Copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In spite of the aforesaid fact the appointment of the petitioner has not been approved. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was finally disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the representations submitted by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date on which the representation is made by the petitioner.

The petitioner submits that on the basis of the directions issued by this Court the order impugned has been passed on 26.6.2002 by which the appointment of the petitioner has been disapproved. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that no reason has been recorded by the District Inspector of Schools while rejecting the claim of the petitioner that under what circumstances if the appointment of the two other teachers were valid and an approval has been granted, then how the appointment of the petitioner who has also been appointed by the same resolution of the Committee of Management on the basis of one advertisement has been refused. The appointment of the petitioner is under Removal of Difficulties Order -I and the proper procedure as provided has been followed. As the Committee of Management was changed and they were demanding illegal gratification for the purpose of approval of the appointment of the petitioner, but the petitioner has not fulfilled their requirement, as such the Committee of Management has come with the case before the District Inspector of Schools that no appointment of the petitioner has been made and there is no sanctioned post. Further submission has been made by the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted a detailed complaint to the District Magistrate, Mathura for the conduct of the Manager of Committee  Management. Copy of the said complaint has also been filed as Annexure- 16 to the writ petition. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is not working is also not correct. A certificate of the Principal has also been annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition, which clearly goes to show that the petitioner is still working.

A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed. The Standing Counsel wanted to justify the order passed by the respondent only on the ground that as there was an order by this Court for the purpose of payment of salary as such the appointment of Krishna Kant Sharma and Mahesh Chandra Kaushik has been approved.

A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Committee of Management. Sri K.N. Tripathi who appears for respondent no.3 has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was on a post, which was not sanctioned, and at no point of time, the petitioner's appointment has been approved or there was any resolution by the Committee of Management for the purpose of appointment.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel and have also perused the record. From the record it is clear that two posts on the basis of retirement of two Assistant Teachers fell vacant and from the record it is also clear that by order dated 31.1.1999 the two posts were sanctioned by the competent authority. As such there would be four posts of Assistant Teachers. The advertisement was made and a resolution of 4 teachers including the petitioner were sent to the District Inspector of Schools. As no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, all the four teachers filed writ petitions before this Court. The writ petition of Mahesh Chandra Kaushik (No. 10422 of 1994 was disposed of finally by order dated 16.9.1997. The order-dated 16.9.1997 is quoted below:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties. If the petitioner is still working the respondents are directed to pay the salary of the petitioner within a period of three months from date in accordance with law. With these observations this petition is accordingly disposed of."

The Court has perused the order of approval of Sri Krishna Kant Sharma and Mahesh Chandra Kaushik. The District Inspector of Schools has passed the said order only on the basis of the order passed by the High Court. He has not discussed anything regarding the validity of the appointment of those persons as well as the petitioner. It was always open to the District Inspector of Schools to say in the order that the appointment of Sri Kant Sharma and Mahesh Chandra Kaushik, whether it was on the sanctioned post after following the proper procedure or not. But the District Inspector of Schools taking shelter of the order of High Court has given his financial approval to those teachers for payment of salary. While considering the case of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools has not recorded a finding that under what circumstances the approval has been granted to the appointment of Mahesh Chandra Kaushik and Krishna Kant Sharma. The District Inspector of Schools has only taken into consideration the case submitted by the Committee of Management. It was incumbent on the part of the District Inspector of Schools to record a finding that under what circumstances if the appointment of four persons have been made on the basis of one and only one advertisement by the same resolution, how the appointment of two persons can be approved and the appointment of two other persons can be rejected. The petitioner has clearly come out with a case of malafide against the Committee of Management. In para 27of the writ petition a specific averment has been made that repsondnetno.4 has demanded two lacks from the petitioner and Mahesh Chandra Kaushik has paid Rs.50,000/- to respondent no.4 by Cheque no. 264556 in advacne.. Then the Committee of Management has recommended the case of Mahesh Chadnra Kaushik for approval. There is no reply in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4 or by the Standing Counsel. As relates to sanction of post a specific averment has been made in para 6 of the writ petition the order of Director of Education. Respondent no.4 as well as the Standing Counsel has not denied regarding sanction of the aforesaid two posts. Further the District Inspector of Schools respondent no.1 has held that the appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. This Court fails to understand that if on the basis of the same advertisement and on the basis of the recommendation, the names of two persons are valid and how the appointment of two other persons are invalid. Respondent no.1 has not recorded a finding to that effect.

In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of opinion that the order passed by respondent no.1 annexure-10 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent no.1 to pass an appropriate detailed and reasoned order in accordance with law taking into consideration the observations made above after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no.4. It is provided that the specific order be passed by respondent no.1 preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

18.7.2006

V.Sri/-


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.