Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURYA PRAKASH versus DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BASTI & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Surya Prakash v. District Inspector Of Schools Basti & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1267 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18505 (1 November 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.32

Special Appeal No.1267 of 2006

Surya Prakash .....Appellant

Versus

District Inspector of Schools, Basti  & others .....Respondents

******

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

This intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court is preferred against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 25.7. 2006 dismissing appellant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7365 of 1997.

We have heard Sri R.K.Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.1 and also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge.

The petitioner-appellant claimed that one Sri Laxmi Rai, Class-IV Employee working at Sri Sita Ram Inter College, Sirsi, Basti was going to retire on 31st December, 1996. The Principal of the Institution sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools to fill in the aforesaid vacancy vide his letter dated 30.11.1996, which was permitted by the District Inspector of Schools, vide letter dated 4th December, 1996.

It is contended that thereafter the vacancy was duly advertised and after considering all the candidates who applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner-appellant was selected and the Principal of the Institution issued appointment letter dated 1.1.1997 appointing him on the post of Peon in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940/- directing him to join within one week. It is further submitted that the petitioner-appellant joined on the same day, i.e., 1.1.1997. It is also submitted that the entire documents regarding selection were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for the purpose of his approval and he was also paid salary for the month of January, 1997.  Subsequently, the Principal did not permit the petitioner-appellant to sign the attendance register. Aggrieved petitioner-appellant  filed the aforesaid writ petition before this Court in which counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-District Inspector of Schools stating that the alleged appointment letter dated 1.1.1997 is a forged document as the petitioner-appellant was never appointed and he managed documents  prepared in collusion with his father Sri Ram Harash Prasad, who was working as Head Clerk in the Institution. It is also submitted that in the salary bill of the Institution the name of the petitioner-appellant was never mentioned but interpolated by marking his name and attendance, which is apparent from the document and shows a clear forgery. The aforesaid forgery of the petitioner-appellant's father was also taken note of and the said Head Clerk was also suspended in a contemplated departmental enquiry. The writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge vide judgment under appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the approval of the District Inspector of Schools was obtained before making appointment and, therefore, non-payment of the salary to the petitioner-appellant on the ground of lack of approval of the District Inspector of Schools was illegal and the Hon'ble Single Judge has erred in not addressing this aspect of the matter in the judgment under appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and from a perusal of the records of the appeal as well as writ petition, we do not find any force in the aforesaid submission.  The District Inspector of Schools has stated in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition that the petitioner- appellant was never appointed in the College and no prior approval before the appointment as required under Regulation 10 of Chapter III of the Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was obtained. It is also stated that no papers were ever received regarding appointment of the appellant in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and there were already 11 sanctioned posts of Class-IV employees, which were already occupied, and there was no vacancy against which the petitioner-appellant could have been appointed.

To test the veracity of the submissions, we required the learned counsel for the appellant to show as to when the vacancy was advertised and how many candidates had applied and selected and to place all those materials before the Court but he expressed his inability to do so, despite opportunity, which makes it clear that all the averments, in this regard, made in the writ petition as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in this appeal are unsubstantiated and based on no material at all. Further the findings of the Hon'ble Single Judge that the claim of the petitioner-appellant that he was appointed in the college has not been substantiated and the documents are unreliable is fortified from the document which the appellant has filed as Anneure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application in this appeal, which is a photo-copy of the attendance register of the employees of the college, showing that the Principal of the institution verified attendance of 37 employees on 13.2.1997 but the name of the petitioner-appellant has been interpolated at Serial No. 38 and his attendance has been marked but it is running over the verification made by the Principal evidenting that the said marking of attendance is subsequent and a clear case of interpolation and manipulation in the record.

In view of the aforesaid, we have no reason to take a view different than that of the Hon'ble Single Judge taken in the judgment under appeal. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, is guilty of approaching this Court with unclean hand by relying upon fabricated documents.

It is well settled exposition of law that a person approaching this Court in extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must come with clean hands and one, who seeks equity, must do equity. Here the petitioner-appellant is guilty of ascertaining wrongs facts and also relying upon forged and fictitious documents showing that he has not come with clean hands and, therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief under equitable jurisdiction of this Court.

In the result, we do not find any fault in the judgment under appeal and affirm the same. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is dismissed summarily.

Dated:1.11.2006

SKM


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.