Ram Asrey v. State of U. P. — 1992 DIGILAW 1354 (ALL)

JUDGMENT : N.L. GANGULY, J. 1. Mahashakti Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Bisara, Mirzapur is a recognized approved Institution by the Education Department of the State, the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Uttar Pradesh High School & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers & other Employees) Act 1971 is applicable to the Institution. 2. The father of the Petitioner late Hari Charan was a Peon in the said Institution. Hari Charan, Peon died on 12-12-87 in harness. The Petitioner Ram Asrey is one of the SONS of the deceased Hari Charan who submitted an application before the Principal of the Institution Mahashakti Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya (herein-after to be referred as 'Institution'). By the application, the Petitioner prayed to the Principal of the Institution for an appointment as a IV class employee under the Harness Rules and the Government Order No. 6648/15-7-1(78)/1981 dated 23rd September. 1981. A copy of the said G.O. has already been annexed as Annexure 2 with the petition. Since the Principal of the Institution did not offer any employment to the Petitioner in place of his deceased father under the Harness Rules and the Government Order, the Petitioner submitted the application before the D.I.O.S. Mirzapur. The District Inspector of Schools' Mirzapur was pleased to order on 16-1-88 to appoint Petitioner Ram Asrey under the G.O. referred above. The Principal of the institution inspite of clear and specific direction of giving employment under the G.O. to the Petitioner did not offer any employment and failed to comply the directions of the D.I.O.S. The D.I O.S. again sent a letter dated 24th February, 1988 to the Principal of the college directing him to comply with his order and report compliance. The Principal of the college inspite of the letter of the D.I.O.S. remained indifferent and declined to comply the directions. The D.I.O.S. again by letters dated 13-4-1988, 8-12-1988 and 28-12-1988, copies whereof are annexed with the writ petitions as Annexure 6 to 8 directed the Principal to comply with his order. The Petitioner when failed to get an employment under the G.O. and Harness Rules, preferred the present writ petition before this Court which was heard and interim direction was issued on 25-1-89 by the Division Bench. 3. The Petitioner when failed to get an employment under the G.O. and Harness Rules, preferred the present writ petition before this Court which was heard and interim direction was issued on 25-1-89 by the Division Bench. 3. The Petitioner was aged about 29 years at the time of filing of the writ petition and possessed requisite educational qualifications for being appointed as Class IV employee in the Institution. He stated in the writ petition that the bread-earner of the family has died and the family members of the deceased are facing serious financial crises and are at the verge of starvation. 4. On 25-1-89 the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to issue an interim mandamus to the D.I.O.S. to get his order enforced by issuing an order to the Opp. parties no. 3 and 4 (Principal and Committee of Management of the Institution) to comply with the orders passed by the D.I.O.S. It was mentioned in the order of the High Court that in case the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 Principal and Committee of Management do not comply with it, to take such action against them as is open under law. The Petitioner was directed to serve the Respondent Principal and Committee of Management by Dasti summons indicating that the Petitioner shall be listed after a month. 5. The Principal of the Institution filed a counter affidavit in reply to the directions of this Court without complying with the orders of the D.I.O.S. The D.I O.S. has not filed any counter affidavit. Sri Aditya Prasad. Manager of Committee of Management of the Institution filed a separate counter affidavit. These counter affidavits were filed in February 1989 and a supplementary counter affidavit was again filed by Sri Shilvant Prasad Misra, Principal on 21-2-91 and a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on 'behalf of the Petitioner. 6. The counter affidavit of Sri Shilvant Prasad Misra, Principal is to the effect that Hari Charan, deceased father of the Petitioner was a Peon (IV class-employee) in the institution. It is stated that Hari Charan along with his family members had murdered his daughter-in-law Smt. Reeta on 4-12-1986 and they had been challenged and sent to jail on 17-12-86 for offences u/s 302/498-A of Indian Penal Code. Since Hari Charan was detained in custody in a criminal case, he was suspended from the service of the institution on 24-4-87. It is stated that Hari Charan along with his family members had murdered his daughter-in-law Smt. Reeta on 4-12-1986 and they had been challenged and sent to jail on 17-12-86 for offences u/s 302/498-A of Indian Penal Code. Since Hari Charan was detained in custody in a criminal case, he was suspended from the service of the institution on 24-4-87. A photostat copy of the First Information Report is filed with the counter affidavit as Annexure I. Three persons, namely, Sheo Asrey s/o Hari Charan, Hari Charan deceased and Smt. Phulwanti were arrayed as accused in the said criminal case. A perusal of the FIR also does not indicate any overt act on the part of Hari Charan deceased. The clear and specific allegation is against Sheo Asrey, husband of the deceased Smt. Reeta. It is said that Sheo Asrey assaulted severely his wife Smt, Reeta who died. There is no doubt a general allegation in the first part of the FIR that Hari Charan and Smt. Phulwanti had been asking for dowry and treating the daughter-in-law with cruelty. Admittedly, Hari Charan had died on 12-12-87 and during the period Hari Charan was placed under suspension, one Hare Krishna was appointed in his place on 30-5-87. After the death of Hari Charan, the temporary employment given to Hare Krishna in place of Hari Charan was terminated by order of the D.I.O.S. on 16-1-1988. The legal position is that on the death of Hari Charan FIR lodged against Hari Charan stood and others, the criminal case which had not till then started stood abated so far Hari Charan deceased is concerned. 7. The main stand taken by the Principal of the institution for not complying with the directions of the D.I.O.S. and also the orders of this Court is that the general public, many respectable and responsible persons of the locality and well wishers of the institution protested to the Principal that Petitioner be not given any appointment as Class IV employee in the institution. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that on the protests and adverse opinion of the general public, it was not considered desirable in the welfare and interest of the institution to have such a person as an employee at the institution. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that on the protests and adverse opinion of the general public, it was not considered desirable in the welfare and interest of the institution to have such a person as an employee at the institution. The Principal Sri Shilvant Prasad Misra annexed the applications received by him from the public as Annexures-3 and 4 containing a number of signatures of persons e.g. S/Sri Jamuna Prasad Dubey, Shitla Prasad Pandey, Ram Lalorak Shukla, Surya Prasad Misra, Anand Prasad Dixit and various other persons. In the counter affidavit, the Principal stated that the D.I.O.S. had stopped the sanction for payment of Principal's salary to compel him to appoint the Petitioner. The Principal instead of complying' with the directions of the D.I.O.S. requested the D.I.O.S. to release his salary. The stand of the Principal is clear and categorical that he would not permit the Petitioner to be appointed under Harness Rules as he is not a fit person to be appointed to any post in the Institution nor Petitioner was dependent of his father at the time of his death. The Principal stated that Petitioner is working as a Carpet Weaver and is thus not unemployed. He suggested that any other son of the deceased may be given appointment. It has been stated that Petitioner is a defamed Goonda belonging to a criminal family. As such it would not be proper nor desirable to give employment to such person in the Educational Institution. 8. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the Principal annexing a copy of the judgment of the Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 164 of 1987 showing that Sheo Asrey and Smt. Phulwanti were convicted and sentenced u/s 302/34 IPC and 498 IPC. 9. A separate counter affidavit of the Manager of the Committee of Management Sri Aditya Prasad Pendey has been filed stating that the Manager of the Committee of Management is not concerned with the appointment of a person as a Chaprasi of the Educational Institution. It is the Principal who is the appointing Authority of such Class IV employees. The Manager of the Committee of Management stated to have sent the orders of this Court and that of the D.I.O.S. to the Principal for necessary action. Two rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the Petitioner reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition. It is the Principal who is the appointing Authority of such Class IV employees. The Manager of the Committee of Management stated to have sent the orders of this Court and that of the D.I.O.S. to the Principal for necessary action. Two rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the Petitioner reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition. It has been stated that the Principal and the Manager of the Committee of Management are avoiding in complying the orders of the D.I.O.S. and this Court on one pretext or the other in an arbitrary manner. The Petitioner stated in the rejoinder affidavit that his father remained as a confirmed peon in the institution, Petitioner is neither an accused nor was involved in any criminal case nor he belongs to a criminal family having any criminal history. The Petitioner reiterated that the Principal Opposite party and the Committee of Management have flouted the orders of the D.I.O.S. as well as of this Court in not giving the appointment letter to the Petitioner under Rules. 10. We have heard he learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri M.D. Singh and learned Counsel for the Respondents - Principal and Committee of Management, Sri H.P. Dubey at length. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted elaborately the facts narrated in the writ petition and submitted that the G.O. referred above, is benevolent Government order providing an appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner in the family. The law and the Government order, referred above, is for the benefit of the family members of such persons and their family members who died in harness. The appointment is to be given at the earliest to the dependent of the deceased dying in harness according to the qualifications. The learned Counsel submitted that there is no claimant from the family of the deceased Hari Charan seeking an employment under the G.O./Harness Rules except the Petitioner. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner is son of Hari Charan who had died during the service period. It is argued that the Principal of the institution has taken a tough and illegal stand in not issuing the appointment letter to the Petitioner. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner is son of Hari Charan who had died during the service period. It is argued that the Principal of the institution has taken a tough and illegal stand in not issuing the appointment letter to the Petitioner. The Principal has adopted an obstinate stand and refused to comply with the orders of his superior, namely, the D.I.O.S. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is neither an accused nor was involved in any criminal case nor there is any criminal family history as stated in the counter affidavit. He submitted that the Principal managed to obtain the latter alleged to have been written to him by the respectable persons of the locality requesting him not to give any appointment to the Petitioner. This is nothing but connecting evidence to substantiate the allegations. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that neither the Principal nor Manager of the Committee of Management has not been able to file any documentary evidence to show that the Petitioner was ever implicated in any criminal case or any such incident. He also submitted that the Petitioner is a fit person having requisite qualifications for being appointed as class IV employee in the institution. The Principal appears to be interested in some other person for reasons best known to him. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the stand of the Principal that since Hari Charan was suspended on account of detention of a criminal case, he ceased to be an employee of the Institution. The argument that once involved in a criminal case and suspended on account of detention does not mean that (he person was terminated from the Institution. There is no order of termination from the service of Hari Charan. Since Hari Charan died during the pendency of the criminal case, the criminal case abated against Hari Charan. It cannot be said that Hari Charan continued to be an accused in any case or remained under suspension. In absence of any termination order from service, it has to be assumed that Hari Charan continued to be in service. 11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited the decision of Supreme Court, Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1976 . In absence of any termination order from service, it has to be assumed that Hari Charan continued to be in service. 11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited the decision of Supreme Court, Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1976 . He also cited a Division Bench decision Surya Bhan Singh v. Commissioner, Gram Vikas, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow 1989 UP LB EC 496, Sher Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1991 1 UP LB EC 379, in support of his submission. 12. The learned Counsel for the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 Sri H.P. Dubey argued at length. He submitted that the Principal of the Institution is the sole authority competent to appoint IV class employee in the Educational Institution according to regulations framed under Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921. He further submitted that any person cannot be forced to be employed in the Educational Institution under Harness Rules unless the Principal who is sole appointing authority consents and accepts to appoint a person under Harness Rules/GO. of 1981. He stated that no mandamus or direction can be issued to the Principal of aided Institution, Manager or the Principal of the College. He submitted that Petitioner since belongs to a family which has a criminal history and his deceased father Hari Charan, mother Smt. Phulwanti and brother Sheo Asrey were involved in bride murder case for dowry, the Petitioner is not a fit person who may be given any appointment under the Harness Rules/G.O. of 1981. He referred to the letters received by him from the respectable persons of the locality of the Institution requesting him not to appoint the Petitioner on the ground that he is a person of bad reputation, criminal habits and criminal history behind him followed by involvement of his family members in bride murder case. Sri H.P. Dubey further submitted that the Court should take into consideration the fact and other circumstances about the reputation and other factors concerning persons who is to be given employment under the Harness Rules. He cited Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 SC 2134 . Sri H.P. Dubey further submitted that the Court should take into consideration the fact and other circumstances about the reputation and other factors concerning persons who is to be given employment under the Harness Rules. He cited Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 SC 2134 . Sri Dubey submitted that dowry killing is a social crime and Social Reformist and Legal Jurist may evolve a machinery for such a boy from remarriage irrespective of a member of the family who committed the crime and in violation penalise the whole family including those who participated in it i.e. social ostracism is needed to curtail increasing malady of bride-burning. Sri Dubey submitted that since the father, mother and brother of the Petitioner were involved in bride's dowry murder case, a social ostracism is needed to curtail the increasing malady of bride-burning. These observations were made in a criminal Appeal against a judgment of conviction u/s 302 IPC arising out of dowry death case. It appears that Sri Dubey inferred that social erstracism means to create such circumstances for the family members of such persons who were involved in a dowry murder case so that other members of such families may also die of starvation. Neither this appears from the facts and details of the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by Sri H.P. Dubey nor it can be ever the intention of law to penalise all persons of the family of accused who were not concerned with it. The argument of Sri Dubey appears to be wholly misconceived that since family members of Petitioner were involved in a dowry murder case, the Petitioner should also not be given the benefit of the benevolent law providing employment to the dependant of the bread-earner who died in harness. It is not to overlook the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. Every citizen has been guaranteed right to life and right to livelihood. A citizen whose family members or close relations if involved or convicted or sentenced in a dowry murder case cannot legally be deprived of the fundamental right of employment, benefit of a benevolent law of providing employment under G.O. to dependents and heirs of persons dying in harness. Every citizen has been guaranteed right to life and right to livelihood. A citizen whose family members or close relations if involved or convicted or sentenced in a dowry murder case cannot legally be deprived of the fundamental right of employment, benefit of a benevolent law of providing employment under G.O. to dependents and heirs of persons dying in harness. It would be arbitrary, unreasonable and against the provisions of the Articles 21, 16 and 19 of the Constitution to deny a citizen a right of employment, right to life and right to livelihood. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, AIR 1986 SC 180 in case of Slum dwellers of Bombay who had no legal right to occupy the land of the Municipal Corporation by erecting unauthorised constructions, even then the Court was pleased to direct the State Government for resettlement of the slum dwellers and directed to postpone their eviction for some time to minimise the hardship of the eviction. Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to approve that right to life guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. It was held that the sweep of the right to life conferred by the said Article is wide and far reaching. Right to life has an important Facet of that right to livelihood. In view of the Constitutional provisions also the submission of Sri H.P. Dubey has to be rejected. 13. Sri Dubey cited Suraj Prasad Saxena v. Manager B.R. Secondary School, Shahjahanbad AIR 1961 SC 282, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Shamli v. Laxmi Narain AIR 1976 SC 888 , Arya Vidya Sabha, Kashi and Another Vs. Krishna Kumar Srivastava and Another, AIR 1976 SC 1073 . Sri Dubey submitted that no writ of mandamus can be issued against a private individual or Manager and Principal of a private or aided institution relying on AIR 1961 All. 282 a Single Judge decision on this Court. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has perhaps not carefully noticed paragraph 8 of the said judgment where Sohanlal Vs. The Union of India (UOI), AIR 1957 SC 529 , has been referred. 282 a Single Judge decision on this Court. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has perhaps not carefully noticed paragraph 8 of the said judgment where Sohanlal Vs. The Union of India (UOI), AIR 1957 SC 529 , has been referred. The paragraph referred in the judgment is quoted as under : Normally, a writ of mandamus does not issue to or as order in the nature of mandamus is not made against a private individual, The law as interpreted shows that the writ of mandamus would not normally issue to private individual. There may be circumstances when the High Court may issue a writ of mandamus even to private individuals. There are certain conditions which if satisfied a writ of mandamus may be issued to even a person requiring him to perform any particular duty. The conditions may be enumerated i.e. there must be in the petition a legal right to compel the Respondent to do or restrain from doing anything. This duty sought to be enforced must be of a public nature created by the provisions of Constitution or of a statute or some rule of common law. 14. The provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Act, 1921 and regulations framed thereunder, the Act No. 24 of 1971 U.P.- High School and Inter-mediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees) Act 1971 has now conferred legal duties and obligations on the Principal and the Committee of Management of recognised High School and Inter-mediate Colleges governed under the Act. The Principal and the Committee of Management has to follow the provisions of the said Act and comply with the directions of the authorities, namely, the D.I.O.S. etc. who, exercise powers of supervision over them. It is duly established that Petitioner is dependent and heir of deceased who died in harness. The benevolent law and the G.O. of 1981 providing a legal right and privilege to such persons getting an employment according to the qualifications in place of the deceased person, is to be enforced. The Principal of the institution receiving aid from the State recognised and is to function according to the provisions of the Act, statute and regulations and Government orders has to discharge public function and duties cast on him by law. The Principal of the institution receiving aid from the State recognised and is to function according to the provisions of the Act, statute and regulations and Government orders has to discharge public function and duties cast on him by law. Thus, it is not correct to say that Principal is a private individual or person against whom no writ of mandamus can be issued. The argument of the learned Counsel for Respondent is misconceived and is rejected. Thus AIR 1961 All. (Supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is of no assistance to him. 15. Similarly, the Supreme Court decisions of AIR 1976 SC 888 and 1073 (supra) are also of no assistance to the Respondents. 16. A careful examinations of the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court shows that civil suit for relief of declaration and injunction under the provisions of Specific Relief Act was filed and the purely discretionary relief claimed by the Plaintiff of the suit cannot be claimed as of right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 17 of AIR 1976 888 (supra) observed : On a consideration of the authorities, mentioned above, it is, therefore, clear that a contract of a personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced and a Court normally would not give a declaration that the contract subsists and the employee, even after having been removed from the service can be deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule, however, is subject to three well recognised exceptions : (i) where a public servant is sought to be removed from service in contravention of the Article 311 of the Constitution of India, (ii) where a worker is sought to be reinstated on being dismissed under Industrial law and (iii) where a statutory body acts in breach or in violation of the mandatory provisions of a statute. 17. Thus, as already mentioned above, that in view of the amended provisions of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act 1921 and the Uttar Pradesh High School & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the approved, recognised and Institutions covered under Act no. 17. Thus, as already mentioned above, that in view of the amended provisions of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act 1921 and the Uttar Pradesh High School & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the approved, recognised and Institutions covered under Act no. 24 of 1971 are under a legal obligations to comply and act in accordance with the provisions of the Act, regulations, aforementioned It is now the State which pays the salary to the teachers and staff of all such Institutions which are included in the list of Institutions under the Uttar Pradesh Act no. 24 of 1971. The service condition of the teachers and staff are also strictly regulated under the provisions of the Intermediate Act, regulations and orders passed by the State Government from time to time. Thus, it is not correct to assume that the Institution, opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are private individual and it is not open for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the principal and the Committee of Management to comply with the directions and orders passed under the provisions of the Act, regulations and the Government orders passed by the State Government from time to time for the efficient, smooth working and running of Educational Institution in the State. It is not denied that the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are approved, recognized aided Institution under the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971. Opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are receiving benefits under the Act and statute from the State. It is not open to them to say that they are private bodies or individual not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It cannot be denied that the Respondents Educational Institution, Principal and the Committee of Management are under a legal duty and obligation to act, follow and abide the provisions of the Act and Rules of the State. Thus, the sub-mission of Sri H.P. Dubey that no writ of mandamus or any direction for appointing Petitioner in the Institution under the Harness Rules and the order can be issued is wholly misconceived and has no legs to stand. 18. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited AIR 1957 SC 527. We have already discussed 1957 casein earlier paragraph. Thus, the sub-mission of Sri H.P. Dubey that no writ of mandamus or any direction for appointing Petitioner in the Institution under the Harness Rules and the order can be issued is wholly misconceived and has no legs to stand. 18. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited AIR 1957 SC 527. We have already discussed 1957 casein earlier paragraph. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment, quoted above, is complete answer to the submission of Sri H.P. Dubey. 19. The learned Counsel for the Respondents Sri H.P. Dubey cited Smt. Ila Devi N. Shroff v. Management of Desai Walchand Valastrai, Gujrati School. Banglore AIR 1963 Mys 18, Sardar Jaswant Singh Vs. Board of Secondary Education and Others, AIR 1962 Cal 20 and Swapan Roy Chowdhury Vs. Khagendra Nath Sen, AIR 1962 Cal 520 , for the proposition that no writ may be issued against a private educational institution. We have already considered this submission of Sri Dubey in the earlier paragraphs and in view of the legal obligations over the Committee of Management and the Principal of the College recognized and approved covered and governed under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, regulations and Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees Act) 1971 and other orders of the State Government, the opposite parties are to comply the provisions of Act, Rules, Regulations and the orders of the State. 20. The obstinate stand taken by the opposite party no. 3 in refusing to comply with the directions of the D.I.O.S. and issue the appointment letters to the Petitioner on the alleged ground that Petitioner has no good reputation belongs to a family having criminal history, deceased father and mother and brother involved in criminal case of dowry death and the opinion and the request of respectable persons of the locality saying not to give employment to the Petitioner, cannot be allowed to stand. The benevolent legislation and Government order of 1981 to provide suitable job to the dependents of person dying in harness has to be enforced strictly and without delay. The allegations of ill reputation, criminal history of the family members of the Petitioner is wholly unsubstantiated and cannot be accepted for a moment. It is not the case of opposite party no. The allegations of ill reputation, criminal history of the family members of the Petitioner is wholly unsubstantiated and cannot be accepted for a moment. It is not the case of opposite party no. 3 that Petitioner is an accused in a dowry death case and there is no documentary evidence to show that he was ever involved in any criminal case, the whole allegations are mischievious. 21. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents at length, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner's writ petition deserves to be allowed. The Respondent No. 3 inspite of the orders of the D.I.O.S. and interim mandamus issued by this Court deliberately did not comply with the orders and gave letter of appointment to the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 took an adament stand not to give appointment to the Petitioner arbitrarily and for no justifiable cause. He has not imagined the hardship of the Petitioner for the last three years without employment. No doubt, opposite party no. 3 stated the Petitioner is employed as a carpet weaver and is thus not employed. This fact has been denied by the Petitioner. Even for a moment if it is assumed that Petitioner for some time works as a Carpet Weaver, it is not unknown that such Carpet knitting work is never a regular employment and is on daily wages. If a person who is starving, works somewhere on daily wages to have something to fill his belly, it does not mean that he became employed. 22. Since the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 have not complied with a direction of the D.I.O.S. and interim mandamus of this Court we consider it appropriate that certain directions be given in this judgment, so that the order of this Court is complied with without any delay and impugnity. In case the order is not complied, the consequential direction given in this judgment shall be enforced by the D.I.O.S. against the Respondent nos. 3 and 4, 23. The writ petition is allowed with costs. The Respondent No. 3 is directed to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner as Class IV employee in the Institution within a week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him and shall permit him to take over charge. The opposite party nos. 3 and 4, 23. The writ petition is allowed with costs. The Respondent No. 3 is directed to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner as Class IV employee in the Institution within a week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him and shall permit him to take over charge. The opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are directed to send the pay bills for payment of salary to the Petitioner according to pay scale allowed by the State every month to the Lekhadhikari/District Inspector of Schools alongwith the bills of all other employees of the Institution till the Petitioner continues to be in service. The Petitioner was aged about 29 years of age at the time of filing of the writ petition and he should be by now about 32 years or so. The question of his being over age shall not be any impediment in issuing of a letter of appointment to him. 24. In ease the opposite party no. 3 fails to comply with the orders of this Court and the opposite party no. 4 remains inactive in getting the orders of this Court fully complied with within a period of one week from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Principal of the Institution, the D.I.O.S. is directed to issue a letter of appointment himself appointing the Petitioner as Class IV employee in the Institution and the D.I.O.S. is further directed to appoint the authorised controller in such circumstances in place of opposite party no. 4 Committee of Management of the Institution. 25. In case of non compliance of the order of this Court by the opposite party no. 3 the matter may be reported to this Court by the District Inspector of Schools, so that this Court may take necessary action under Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the opposite party no. 3, Principal of the institution concerned.