Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHASHI PAL RAO versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shashi Pal Rao v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 53428 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 17188 (4 October 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.27

Civil Misc. Writ  Petition No.53428 of 2004

Shashi Pal Rao      ..... Petitioner

versus

State of U.P  & others     ...... Respondent

 ******

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.  Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.8.2004 passed by District Inspector of Schools refusing to approve the  ad hoc  appointment of the petitioner as ad hoc Lecturer(Economics)  on the ground that U.P Secondary Education Service Commission  (Removal of difficulties) (Second) order 1981 having been rescinded  with effect from 25.1.1999, it is not possible to approve ad hoc appointment   made on the short term vacancy.  

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ad hoc appointment  of the petitioner was made on 6.12.1998 and the information of the ad hoc appointment  for approval was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools on 7.12.1988 which was received by the District Inspector of Schools on 8.12.1998.   The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's ad hoc appointment on short term vacancy having been made in accordance with (Removal of Difficulties)  (Second) order 1981,  the said ad hoc appointment shall  not be affected in any manner by rescission of Difficulties Order  on 25.1.1999.  The counsel for the petitioner also submits that in view of the District Inspector of Schools having not communicated his decision within seven days, the ad hoc appointment shall be deemed to be approved.  The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the Difficulties Order having been rescinded,  the District Inspector of Schools has rightly  refused to approve the ad hoc appointment.

I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the record.  The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that all proceedings pertaining to ad hoc appointment  were completed on 6.12.1998 and the papers were also forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 7.12.1998  which were said to have been received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools  on 8.12.1998.  The ground No. 2 and 9 have  specifically been taken that  the District Inspector of Schools having failed to communicate his decision within seven days, the said  ad hoc appointment shall be deemed to be approved.    

The   U.P Secondary Education Service Selection Board (Removal of difficulties) (Second) order 1981  were continuing till 25.1.1999  when they were rescinded.    The   case of the petitioner is that his ad hoc appointment stood  deemed approved  prior to  25.1.1999, hence his ad  hoc  appointment is not affected by the rescission  of  Difficulties Order on 25.1.1999.  The District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order has refused to approve only on the ground of rescission  of Difficulties Order with effect from 25.1.1999.  The District Inspector of Schools has not  adverted to the claim of the petitioner  of ad hoc appointment on merits  as well as not examined the case of the petitioner as to whether ad hoc appointment was  made in accordance with the procedure prescribed  under  U.P Secondary Education Service Selection Board (Removal of difficulties) (Second) order 1981.  The District Inspector of Schools has also not examined as to whether the ad hoc appointment should be treated to  deemed to be approved prior to 25.1.1999.  In event the ad hoc appointment was made prior to 25.1.1999 and all steps were completed prior to 25.1.1999, the rescission  of Difficulties Orders can have no affect on the completed transaction made prior to 25.1.1999.  The fact of rescission  of Difficulties Order was that no ad hoc appointment could be made after 25.1.1999 nor any process of ad hoc appointment which had not been  finalised can be continued.  The District Inspector of Schools having not examined the claim on the merits, the ends of justice be served in setting aside the order dated 17.8.2004 passed by District Inspector of Schools and directing  the District Inspector of Schools to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of  certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

Date 4.10.2006

IB


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.