Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Prakash & Others v. D.I.O.S. & Others - WRIT - A No. 10369 of 1990 [2004] RD-AH 1477 (22 November 2004)


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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10369 of 1990

Ram Prakash and others Vs. District Inspector of Schools,

Agra and others.


Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard Sri Haider Husain learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel.

1. The facts of the case in brief are that all the petitioners 1 to 6 were duly appointed in C.T. grade as teachers on 6.1.1961, 22.2.1965, 2.11.1963, 1.11.1973, 11.2.1973 and 1.11.1973 respectively and were subsequently promoted in L.T. grade in form no.15-B. These appointments were made against existing resultant clear vacancies having accrued due to the promotion of C.T. grade teachers to L.T. grade after applications were invited to fill the said vacancies and the posts were notified and selection was made in accordance with law. The petitioners being fully qualified as L.T. grade trained were appointed by the then Deputy Administrator of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, who was the Manager since the Nagar Mahapalika had been superceded, the petitioners joined their services and continued working. The Managing Committee, the then Deputy Administrator vide its letter dated 15.11.1988 sought for the approval of the appointments of the petitioners from the opposite party no.1 who in-turn asked for the report from the accounts officer about the financial concurrence. The accounts officer submitted a detailed report dated 25.2.1989 mentioning therein all 6 vacant posts in C.T. grade and one in L.T. grade giving his consent for approval of the posts to the respondent no.1-District Inspector of Schools, Agra, but inspite of the same the respondent no.1 failed to respond by sending the approval and another reminder dated 24.3.1990 was sent.

2. The respondent no.1 vide his letter dated 16.4.1990 informed the Manager that since the Government had imposed restriction/ban on appointments vide Notification of June 1989 for the appointment in C.T. grade teachers hence, no approval could be given inspite of the fact that accounts officer had accorded his financial concurrence for the approval of the appointments of the petitioners. It has been submitted that the respondent no.1 had accorded approval to some teachers in C.T. grade of Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Kerawali, District Agra on 27.6.1989, i.e., after the said Notification dated 28.6.1989. Such other several approvals were also given, but inspite of it no approval was granted to the petitioners, arbitrarily and purposely, and inconsequence thereof no salary has been paid to the petitioners-teachers though they had been working regularly, more so, inspite of the fact that 14 posts in L.T. grade had been sanctioned by the Government Order while at the very point of time only 8 teachers were working in C.T. grade and the remaining 6 C.T. grade posts were vacant.

3. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed the present writ petition on the grounds inter alia, claiming that the basis of refusal to give approval by the impugned order was not applicable to the case of the petitioners since it applied only to the teachers appointed after 16.6.1989, and inspite of the fact that the office of the District Inspector of Schools itself had admitted that 6 posts in C.T. grade were still vacant and the financial approval had been granted. The petitioners were entitled to get approval from the District Inspector of Schools as they were appointed much before 16.6.1989. This writ petition was admitted and an interim stay order was granted on 3.4.1990 which was made absolute vide order dated 10.9.1991.

4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners were made on the condition that approval of the District Inspector of Schools be obtained and since, approval was not granted the petitioners cannot be allowed to join and continue to work. It has also been submitted that no post of C.T. grade and L.T. grade were vacant in the institution. It has been admitted that the respondent no.1-District Inspector of Schools had vide its order dated 27.6.1989 granted approval to those teachers who were working in Intermediate College, Kerawali, District Agra on the ground that they were working since 6.4.1989 and the C.T. grade post had been surrendered accordingly. The petitioners are not supposed to be working in the institution and the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties II Order) 1981 is applicable to the post vacant after 1981 and therefore, the post vacant from 1.2.1971 to 1979 would be treated to have been surrendered under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, Chapter 2, Rule 20 and therefore, no action could be taken. The averments made in the counter affidavit have been controverted in rebuttal in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners.

5. I have looked into the record of the case and find that the petitioners were duly appointed against existing posts of teachers in C.T. grade after due selection in accordance with law and there existed 6 vacant posts at the time the petitioners were appointed which is clear from the letter of the Administrator written to the respondent no.1 in reference to the letter of the Principal wherein it was requested to fill the 6 vacant posts in C.T. grade. True copies of which have been filed as annexures-RA-1 & RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit and the copy of the report of the accounts officer seeking financial concurrence, a copy of which has been filed as annexure-RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit.

6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, and the observations made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 16.4.1990 annexure-12 to the writ petition issued by respondent no.1 is quashed. The respondent no.1 is directed to consider the petitioners for regularization of their services on the posts of L.T. grade and continue to pay the salary of the petitioners regularly month to month and pay the entire arrears of salary with all consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

November 22,2004



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.