Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRA PAL SINGH & ANOTHER versus D.I.O.S. MEERUT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chandra Pal Singh & Another v. D.I.O.S. Meerut & Others - WRIT - A No. 24233 of 1997 [2006] RD-AH 17511 (11 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. 30.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24233 of 1997

Chandrapal Singh and others              ...                Petitioners

Versus

District Inspector of Schools,Meerut

and others                                           ...                 Respondents.

AND

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6035 of 2001

Bablu Malik and others                      ...                 Petitioners

Versus

District Inspector of Schools,Meerut

and others                                           ...                 Respondents.

AND

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54041 of 2005

Chandrapal Singh and others              ...                Petitioners

Versus

State of U.P. and others                      ...                Respondents.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Sri R.K. Ojha for petitioners in writ petition No. 24233 of 1997, and in writ petition no. 54051 of 2005; Sri M.K. Nigam for petitioners in writ petition No. 6035 of 2001, Sri Girish Chandra Shukla appears for Principal in these writ petitions.  Learned Standing Counsel has filed counter affidavit and represents the state-respondents.

There are 11 sanctioned  class IV posts in D.A.V. Inter College Kishanpur Barol, Bagpat including a sweeper.  The petitioners Sri Chandra Pal Singh and Rishi Pal Singh were appointed by the then Principal of the College against two existing vacancies  prior to the amendment of Regulation 101 of  Second Schedule appended to U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921.  Their appointments made on 21.6.1991, in the  substantive vacancies, which arose in the college on 1.9.1999

2

and 4.4.1990, were not approved by the District Inspector of Schools.   The  writ petition No. 27969 of 1992, was  allowed on 11.4.1997 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter of their approval afresh.  The court  found that both the grounds mentioned in the order namely that petitioner no. 2 was appointed under Dying in Harness Rules , 1974 and was not appointed after  advertisement under rules and that the vacancies were reserved were not factually correct.

The District Inspector of Schools reconsidered the matter of approval and again rejected their representation for the financial approval on 28.6.1997 on the ground that out of the eleven sanctioned posts, the two vacancies on which the petitioners were appointed were reserved for scheduled caste candidates.  

In the counter affidavit of Km. Manju Sharma, District Inspector of Schools, Meerut filed in writ petition No. 24233 of 1997, it is admitted in paragraph 4 that in the category of Class IV employment in the college, the quota of scheduled caste was complete but the quota for scheduled tribes was not filled up.

The reasons given in the order of the  District Inspector of Schools dated 28.6.1997 are again incorrect and have been contradicted by her successor-in-office.  It is not denied by Km. Manju Sharma,  the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut in the year 1997 that the quota of scheduled caste in the category of class IV employment is complete.  In the relevant year the quota of Scheduled  Tribes in public employment was three percent.Out of eleven sanctioned posts on roster point the position will not fall on any such point ( in the recruitment) to deny approval to petitioner. The two appointees appointed prior to amendment of Regulation 101 came into force, as such cannot be denied the benefit of approval of their appointment.  

3

In para 32 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioners are regularly discharging their duties in the institution and will suffer irreparable loss if the order dated 28.6.1997 passed by the  District Inspector of Schools Meerut is allowed to stand.  The  District Inspector of Schools has, however, stated in para 19 of the counter affidavit, relying upon the report of the Principal of the Institution dated 24.5.1997, that they are not working.

The reasons given in the order dated 28.6.1992 of the  District Inspector of Schools Meerut, annexure-8 to the writ petition, are incorrect and have been contradicted by his successor in office.  The order of the  District Inspector of Schools is as such set aside.  Since no other ground is taken to deny the financial approval of their appointment, it is directed that the financial approval shall be given  to the petitioners appointment.   They, however,  shall be paid salary only with effect from the date they join in the institution.  They shall not be entitled to any salary upto to the date of their joining.

In writ petition No. 6035 of 2001, filed by Bablu Malik, Mahipal Singh, Rama Shanker and Pramod Kumar, it is alleged that they were appointed on class IV post by the then Principal on 10.5.1997 after following the process of appointment.   The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 1.2.2001 has refused top approve their appointment on the ground that the Principal had withheld the facts of the appointment of Chandrapal Singh and Rishipal Singh and the filing of writ petition No. 27969 of 1992 which was allowed and thereafter writ petition No. 24233 of 1997 against the order dated 28.6.1997 ( which has been connected and has been allowed today) and writ petition No. 6308 of 1998 filed by Rupesh Kumar who  was also appointed along with the petitioners.

The filing of these writ petition and the  orders passed

4

therein do not effect the appointment of the four petitioners on substantive vacancies.

In the counter affidavit of Sri Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Deputy  District Inspector of Schools, Meerut it is stated in para 12 that Chandrapal Singh and Rishipal Singh were not appointed in accordance with law and that both of them have filed second writ petition No. 44233 of 1997 in which no orders have been passed regarding their appointment. They were disapproved on the ground that the quota of scheduled caste was not complete.  

The Inspector  has not given any other reason for disapproving the appointment of four petitioners.   It is not denied that there were four vacancies on the date when the petitioners were appointed.  Further there is no pleadings nor any ground has been taken that  prior  approval was not taken  under Regulation 101before  initiating the process of their appointment.

The appointment of Bablu Malik and three other petitioners in writ petition No. 6035 does not suffer from any illegality.   They were appointed on substantive vacancies and are also entitled for approval of their appointments.

In para 16 of the writ petition it is stated by the  petitioners that though they were appointed in 1997, they were issued fresh appointment letter on 28.12.2000 in compliance of the order dated 27.12.2000 passed by the  District Inspector of Schools, Meerut giving financial apaproval which was subsequently cancelled by the impugned order dated 1.2.2001.  There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioners are working and discharging their duties.   In he circumstances  they also cannot be held entitled to salary until they join the post.

5

The third writ petition No. 5401 of 2001 filed by Chandra Pal Singh and others seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 8.7.2005 by which the payment of salary were allowed by the  District Inspector of Schools to the four petitioners in writ petition No. 6035 of 2001.  Now since both the writ petitions namely writ petition No. 24033 of 1997 and writ petition No. 6035 of 2001 are allowed, the writ petition No. 54041 of 2005 filed by Chandrapal Singh and Rishipal Singh for restraining the respondents to pay salary to the four petitioner appointed in the year 1997 has become infructuous.

In the result, Writ Petition No. 24233 of 1997 is allowed.  The order of the  District Inspector of Schools dated 28.6.1997 is quashed.  The petitioners are held to be validly appointed.  They, however, shall be entitled for the salary after this judgment from the date of joining in the institution.

Writ Petition No. 6035 of 2001 is also allowed.  The order dated 1.2.2001 passed by the  District Inspector of Schools disapproving the payment of their salary is quashed.  The petitioners in this writ petition also will be entitled for payment of salary after this judgment only after they join in the institution.

The  Writ Petition No. 5401 of 2001 is consequently dismissed as infructuous.

Dt. 11.10.2006.

BM/-


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.