Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1822 (ALL)

Jai Shanker Tripathi v. State Of U. P.

2005-09-15

N.K.MEHROTRA

body2005
JUDGMENT : N.K. MEHROTRA, J. By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.7.2003 passed by the Principal, Acharya Dwivedi Inter College, Rae Bareilly as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and orders dated 11.6.2003 and 14.7.2003, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Rae Bareilly. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that two posts of Class IV employees were advertised for selection vide Advertisement dated 18.5.2003 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It was made clear in the advertisement that one post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate and another post shall be filled up from General Category candidate. The Petitioner alongwith one Sant Ram of Scheduled Caste candidate was selected. The Petitioner was given appointment on 4.6.2003 vide Annexure-3. The Petitioner submitted the joining report on 27.6.2003 vide Annexure-5. He worked for about 15 days but on 16.5.2003 his appointment was cancelled for want of approval by the District Inspector of Schools, Rae Bareilly. 3. The Petitioner has also filed a letter of the District Inspector of Schools, Rae Bareilly addressed to the Principal, Acharya Dwivedi Inter College, Rae Bareilly dated 2.5.2003 by which the District Inspector of Schools had granted permission to fill up two posts of Class IV ; one from the General Category candidate and another from Scheduled Caste category. It is alleged by the Petitioner that another candidate of Scheduled Caste category is still working and his appointment has not been cancelled. It is also alleged by the Petitioner that the order of cancellation of the appointment has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing. It is also alleged that there is no requirement of approval of the selection of Class IV employee by the District Inspector of Schools. 4. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the appointment has been cancelled because there is a backlog for filling up the Class IV post from the reserved category candidate. The permission was granted to fill up the post reserved for Scheduled Caste category and therefore, the appointment of Sant Ram was approved and the appointment of the Petitioner was cancelled. It is also alleged that there was a ban on the appointment of the General Category candidate. The permission was granted to fill up the post reserved for Scheduled Caste category and therefore, the appointment of Sant Ram was approved and the appointment of the Petitioner was cancelled. It is also alleged that there was a ban on the appointment of the General Category candidate. It is also alleged that the appointment was made against the provisions under Regulation 101, Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the only question involved in this writ petition is as to whether any approval from the District Inspector of Schools is required after the selection of the candidate and prior to giving of appointment or the post can be filled up with the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. 6. Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is as follows: 101. Appointing Authority except with prior approval of Inspector shall not fill up any vacancy of non-teaching post of any recognized aided institution: Provided that filling of the vacancy on the post of jamadar may be granted by the Inspector. 7. The aforesaid Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations requires prior approval. The prior approval has been granted by the District Inspector of Schools vide Annexure-RA 1 dated 2.5.2003 in which the District Inspector of Schools has granted approval for filling up the post of Class IV employees ; one from General Category and another from Reserved Category. After seeing this letter dated 2.5.2003, the condition imposed under the aforesaid Regulation 101 with regard to the requirement of prior approval for filling up the post is fulfilled and the District Inspector of Schools is not required to grant any further approval after the selection. In the similar situation, one Sant Ram has been appointed after prior approval against a reserved post and his appointment has not been cancelled on this ground for want of approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The appointment of the Petitioner has been cancelled for want of approval by the District Inspector of Schools. While the prior approval was sought for both the vacancies from the District Inspector of Schools and the District Inspector of Schools had granted prior approval vide letter dated 2.5.2003 as contained in Annexure-RA 1 to the interim relief application. The appointment of the Petitioner has been cancelled for want of approval by the District Inspector of Schools. While the prior approval was sought for both the vacancies from the District Inspector of Schools and the District Inspector of Schools had granted prior approval vide letter dated 2.5.2003 as contained in Annexure-RA 1 to the interim relief application. It is established from the aforesaid provisions that the approval on the appointment of Class IV employee is not required. Therefore, the impugned order canceling the appointment of the Petitioner against Class IV post is not in accordance with law. 8. Further, before canceling the appointment of the Petitioner, admittedly no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the Petitioner. Therefore, this order appears to be in violation of the principle of natural justice also. 9. It is not denied that there is a vacancy meant for being filled up from the General Category candidate. It is not denied that the permission was granted by the District Inspector of Schools for filling up the post from the General Category candidate. It is alleged that there was a ban for appointment on the post of General Category candidate. No order of banning the appointment has been filed. Even if, presuming that there was a ban, the appointment once made cannot be cancelled without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.7.2003 (Annexure-1) alongwith directions of the District Inspector of Schools, Rae Bareilly dated 11.6.2003 and 14.7.2003 are quashed. The opposite parties are directed to allow the Petitioner to work against Class IV post on which he was given appointment on 24.6.2003 vide Annexure-3 to this writ petition.