High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Veerendra Kumar Sharma v. District Inspector Of Schools, Agra & Others - WRIT - A No. 19687 of 2005  RD-AH 15825 (11 September 2006)
Writ Petition No. 19687 of 2005
Veerendra Kumar Sharma Vs. District Inspector of Schools & ors.
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.
The petitioner claiming himself to be Lecturer Commerce appointed in the year 1997 has filed the writ petition with the following prayer:
"i) Issue a writ,order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for the post of Lecturer, from the year 2000, onwards.
ii) Issue a writ,order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of petitioner on the post of Lecturer Commerce in the Institution.
iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem think fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner"
On 18.3.2005, time was granted to the standing counsel to file counter affidavit. Pursuant to the same counter affidavit has been filed by the standing counsel which is on record.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents.
In the writ petition, it is no where stated that how and when the petitioner was appointed. Whether the vacancy against which petitioner is claiming his appointment was short term vacancy or his appointment was made against substantive vacancy on ad-hoc basis. It is not on record what procedure has been adopted before issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner. In the para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the state/respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was never appointed in the Institution and has never worked also (this averment has been made on the basis of the letter of the Committee of Management, copy of which has been annexed as annexure 2 to the counter affidavit). Further, in para 8 it is stated that certificate of working experience dated 7.1.2000 given by the Principal of the college bearing endorsement of D.I.O.S annexure 2 to the writ petition is forged. These averments have not been denied by the petitioner as no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner is governed under the provisions of U.P. High School Intermediate Education Act 1921 and the appointment in question was to be made either in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 or U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 1981. The petitioner did not disclose the manner and mode of the appointment. The payment of salary of a teacher can only be given if appointment is made against the sanctioned post and that has been made in accordance with the law. If the appointment itself is not in accordance with law then no mandamus can be issued to the state respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from the state exchequer under the provisions of U.P. High School Intermediate Colleges Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees Act 1971.
Considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner has failed to make out any good ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.