High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mahesh Prasad Kushwaha v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari And Ors. - WRIT - A No. 41555 of 1999  RD-AH 12044 (24 July 2006)
Court No. 1
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41555 of 1999
Mahesh Prasad Kushwaha vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari & others
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.
This writ petition has been filed by one Sri Mahesh Prasad Kushwaha seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, specially respondent nos. 2 and 3 to make the payment of salary to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Sanwara,district Ballia w.e.f 2.7.1996.
The case of the petitioner is that his father who happened to be a teacher died on 6.1.1984. At the time of his death the petitioner was of 10 years. He has passed his Intermediate Examination in the year 1992 and thereafter moved an application for seeking his appointment under the dying-in-harness Rules in place of his father since (deceased). In view of the Government Order dated 23.3.1990 which has been issued under the provision of Section 13 (1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, a consequential appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 2.7.1996. The petitioner thereafter moved several applications for payment of his salary. In one of the application dated 8.9.1998, a report has been sought and an order has been passed by B.S.A. theron on 10.9.1998 for holding an enquiry. Pursuant to the same an enquiry has been made by the Deputy Inspector of Schools and he has submitted his report on 15.9.1998. According to him as per spot inspection the appointment of the petitioner appears to be genuine. He has also recommended for payment of salary. The petitioner states that thereafter District Basic Education Officer has passed an order on 6.5.1999 for payment of salary to the petitioner but till date no salary has been paid.
Counter affidavit has been filed by Sri N.D. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 wherein it has been stated that after the death of Raj Deo Ram, petitioner's father, the petitioner's elder brother Sri Suresh Prasad has been appointed on 28.7.1990 and is getting his salary. In para 3 (dha) of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the District Basic Education Officer has summoned both the brothers along with their original appointment letters and other relevant materials in support of their case. Though the petitioner appeared but he did not produce the required material as directed by the District basic Education Officer. However, petitioner's real brother Suresh Prasaed did not appear before him and due to pendency of the writ petition no decision could be taken. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has got the appointment by playing fraud upon the authorities concerned.
I have heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.D. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent and Learned Standing Counsel.
From perusal of the writ petition, it transpires that not only the petitioner has played fraud upon the authorities but it appears that State authorities were also in league in passing the various orders holding petitioner's appointment genuine and payment of salary without looking into papers and relevant material for valid appointment. The enquiry officer has held that the petitioner's appointment appears to be valid on the basis of spot inspection without looking into the record and also recommended for payment of salary and consequential order for payment of salary has also been passed by the then Basic Shiksha Adhkari.
In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to make a comprehensive representation along with copy of the writ petition and the order passed by this Court to the Director of Education (Basic)U.P. who after hearing all the concerned i.e. petitioner and his real brother Suresh Prasad etc. shall pass reasoned order without being influenced by the observation made in this order within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In case the Director of Education finds that the petitioner is not entitled for any salary in that eventuality he may examine the conduct of the then officers who had made the enquiry with regard to the petitioner's appointment and passed order for payment of salary to the petitioner.
With this observation the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.