Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1149 (ALL)

Jakir Hussain v. D. I. O. S. , Basti

2004-05-27

D.P.SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT D. P. Singh, J.—Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed of under the Rules of the Court. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. This petition is directed against an order dated 1.4.2000 by which the District Inspector of Schools has rejected the claim of the petitioner who was claiming appointment as a assistant clerk in the institution. The claim of salary has also been rejected. 4. Khair Inter College is a duly recognised and aided college and which is a declared minority Institution under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. It is alleged that an assistant clerk retired on 30.6.1993. The Head Clerk also retired on 31.7.1995 and Shri Vakil Ahmad Siddiqui, who was working as Assistant Clerk, was promoted to the post of Head Clerk, resulting in two substantive vacancies of Assistant clerk. It is alleged that the Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 29.6.1995 sought to fill up the vacancies and for which a communication dated 24.7.1995 was sent to the District Inspector of Schools and the District Inspector of Schools granted approval for appointment in February, 1995. It is further alleged in the petition that the vacancy was advertised in two daily newspapers on 16.2.1996 and 28.2.1996 in pursuance of which the petitioner and others applied and were called for interview on 25.6.1997. The petitioner claims to be selected by the Selection Committee and his name forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 7.1.1998 but no orders were passed by the District Inspector of Schools forcing the petitioner to file a writ petition which was disposed of vide order dated 28.7.1999 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the claim of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof the impugned order has been passed, which is under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order is only based on the letter of the Principal of the Institution and even the letter has been misconstrued and, thus, there is error apparent on the face of record. In the impugned order the respondent has recorded categorical findings that no papers regarding the alleged selection was ever submitted before the District Inspector of Schools. In the impugned order the respondent has recorded categorical findings that no papers regarding the alleged selection was ever submitted before the District Inspector of Schools. From the letter of the Principal which is dated 24.12.1999 it is amply clear that even in the Institution no documents with regard to the alleged selection of the petitioner was available. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is asserted that the District Inspector of Schools had granted approval in February, 1995 for filling up posts by direct selection is highly vague. Neither any particular date has been alleged nor the letter has been annexed along with the petition. In the counter-affidavit while replying to paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that no sanction or approval for filling up the posts was ever granted by the District Inspector of Schools. In fact, it has been alleged in several paragraphs in the counter-affidavit that no record of any proceedings for selection was ever submitted by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools. In the rejoinder-affidavit except for bald denials no specific dates have been mentioned. In normal course of business in Government offices when official letters are received, they are entered in a register by the receipt clerk and he provides a unique number for receipt of the documents. The petitioner has been unable to either disclose the name of the person who received the documents or the number of the receipt and the date. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Management wherein also the entire process of selection has been alleged to be fabricated and forged. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Management, it is alleged that the brother of the petitioner forged and fabricated papers to establish his and the petitioner’s claim for appointment. The very issue of appointment of the petitioner is mired in acute factual controversy where allegations and counter allegations have been levelled between the parties. Further, there is no authentic document to show that in fact the petitioner was ever lawfully selected and appointed in the Institution. This is a highly disputed question of fact and a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is most ill-equipped to deal with such controversy. 6. Further, there is no authentic document to show that in fact the petitioner was ever lawfully selected and appointed in the Institution. This is a highly disputed question of fact and a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is most ill-equipped to deal with such controversy. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since it is a minority institution, the respondents had no option but to grant approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Even minority institutions have to follow the procedure of law as prescribed though they can make appointments of their choice but the mandatory requirements of law had to be followed because the money has to be paid from the State Exchequer. Section 16 (FF) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 deals with minority institutions. It provides for constitution of a selection committee which includes an expert nominated by the Director of Education. It further stipulates in sub-clause (2) that the procedure prescribed has to be followed. While sub-clause (3) mandates that no appointment shall be made except with the approval of the Inspector. Regulation 17 of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act deals with the procedure for selection of teachers in the minority institutions. Sub-clause (a) provides for an advertisement and supply of documents to the District Inspector of Schools, while sub-clause (g) provides for submission of copies of the entire selection process to the District Inspector of Schools. Regulation 8 mandates that a copy of the appointment letter should also be forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools. In this case the petitioner has been unable to satisfy the Court that even the mandatory provisions of law with regard to appointment was followed. 7. In view of discussions hereinabove, I do not find that this is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.