Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2630 (ALL)

AMIT KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-08-28

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner has come up questioning the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, withdrawing the approval granted to the petitioner on 12.1.2007 against his appointment as a class-IV employee in J.P. Inter College, Campierganj, Gorakhpur. 2. The background of the case is that the Principal of the institution proceeded to advertise 2 posts of class-IV in the institution out of which one post was of Daftari. The advertisement indicated the said post as class-IV vacancies. The documents were submitted after selection and the District Inspector of Schools granted approval to the same vide order dated 12.1.2007. The petitioner alongwith one Arvind Kumar Dubey was appointed against the said 2 posts. 3. Subsequently, some direction was issued by the Joint Director of Education upon which the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 3.9.2008 has proceeded to cancel the approval only in respect of the petitioner on the ground that certain facts had been concealed at the time of grant of approval in January 2007. The said order according to the petitioner has been passed without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. 4. The writ petition was entertained and this Court vide order dated 14.11.2008 called upon the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter-affidavit giving specific reasons as to what was the material concealment which had impelled the District Inspector of Schools to cancel the approval order of the petitioner. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent and in all the paragraphs repeatedly it has been stated that the Principal advertised the post of Daftari as a class-IV post which according to the inference drawn by the respondents ought to have been treated separately. 6. The counter-affidavit further indicates that the approval order contained a recital that in case any fact is found to have been concealed then the approval order was liable to be cancelled. It is on this ground that the impugned order has been passed. 7. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed to the said counter-affidavit and the facts stated therein have been denied. 8. The issue before the Court is as to whether the post of Daftari is also a class-IV post or not. This has already been taken notice of in the decision in Hari Krishna Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, Civil Misc. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed to the said counter-affidavit and the facts stated therein have been denied. 8. The issue before the Court is as to whether the post of Daftari is also a class-IV post or not. This has already been taken notice of in the decision in Hari Krishna Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28699 of 1995, decided on 8.12.1997. The post of Daftari is also a class-IV post but it carries a higher pay scale. In my opinion, the Principal did not commit any illegality in advertising the said post as a class-IV post. The Principal is the appointing authority of all class-IV posts as per Chapter-I Regulation 10 read with Regulation 100 of Chapter-III. Accordingly, there is no concealment or any material concealment which may in any way impede the power of the Principal to proceed to hold appointment on a class-IV post. 9. The impugned order has been admittedly passed without giving any notice or opportunity and, therefore, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. Apart from this, the power of review by the District Inspector of Schools for cancelling the approval could have been exercised had there been any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. As noted above, there was neither any concealment or misrepresentation on the part of the Principal in proceeding with the selections and appointment. The petitioner was equally not saddled with any such allegation nor any such suspicion or doubt has been cast upon him and established. The power of review, therefore, was not available to the District Inspector of Schools at a later stage in the absence of any such circumstance. In my opinion, the power of review being not available, the impugned order amounts to surrender of jurisdiction in favour of the Joint Director of Education. This course is not permissible keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Radhey Shyam Chaube and others v. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others, 1978 AWC 40 and Havaldar Singh v. U.P. Shiksha Nideshak, VII Mandal, Gorakhpur and others, 1976 AWC 123 and the ratio of Para 16 in the case of Tirlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab, (2001) 6 SCC 260 . 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 3.9.2008 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 3.9.2008 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits and shall be entitled to discharge his duties as a class-IV employee without any interference on account of the impugned order. —————