JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition could have been avoided had the respondents acted with a little care and caution and would have been vigilant in observing their statutory obligations. Unfortunately that was not done. 2. The petitioners is a Committee of Management of Shree Shanker Junior High School, Sirsani, District Auraiya (hereinafter referred to as “School”). It is recognized by the Board of Basic Education (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) and is governed by U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and rules and regulations framed thereunder. The school being in grant in aid, for the matter of payment of salary it is governed by the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers & Other Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1978”). This Act 1978 is applicable to the School since 1998 when it was brought in grant in aid. 3. At this stage I do not propose to take note of number of sanctioned posts of teaching and non teaching staff in the school etc. since that is not be seen at this stage and in my view that is beyond the scope of the writ petition. The real controversy is something else. 4. It is not in dispute that for the purpose of recruitment and continuance of service of teachers of the School, it is governed by the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1978”). Rule 10 thereof requires for constitution of Selection Committee for appointment of a teachers which includes a nominee of the District Basic Education Officer. It is only this Selection Committee who can make selection after observing the procedure prescribed in Rule 10. 5. The petitioner claimed that there existed certain vacancies of teachers in the school hence a request was made to District Basic Education Officer, Auriya (hereinafter referred to as “DBEO”) for grant of permission for making advertisement of the vacancies on the post of Head Master and others lying since July, 2007 but no decision was taken thereon. 5. The petitioner claimed that there existed certain vacancies of teachers in the school hence a request was made to District Basic Education Officer, Auriya (hereinafter referred to as “DBEO”) for grant of permission for making advertisement of the vacancies on the post of Head Master and others lying since July, 2007 but no decision was taken thereon. The petitioner came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 25139 of 2010 which was disposed of on 6.5.2010 with the following direction: “This Court is of the opinion that regular selection on the post of Headmaster in accordance with the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rule, 1978 at the earliest in view of Rule 20 which permits temporary appointment for 6 months only. Let the Basic Shiksha Adhikari pass appropriate orders on the application made for permission to advertise. Caveator is at liberty to point out that the permission to hold selections may be granted to the duly constituted and recognised committee of management only. Subject to the aforesaid observation made hereinabove, writ petition is disposed of.” 6. Despite that nothing move the respondent No. 3. This writ petitioner it appears, was advised that for advertisement no prior approval is required. He therefore proceeded to get advertisement published of the vacancy of Head Master and two teachers in a daily newspaper “Swatantra Bharat” dated 12.10.2011 and by letter dated 17.10.2011 requested DBEO to appoint his nominee in Selection Committee. Again nothing proceeded further on the part of DBEO. Hence this writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to send his nominee. 7. This Court required, by order dated 4.1.2012, the respondent No. 3 to explain why no decision has been taken in the matter particularly when an order was already passed by this Court directing him to take decision in the matter of advertisement also but even that order remained unattended and uncomplied with by respondent No. 3. This inaction and audacity on the part of respondent No. 3 was ex facie contemptuous also. The Court fixed 11.1.2012 requiring respondent No. 3 to appear before it. The respondent No. 3 had the courage not to comply even this order and did not appear on 11.1.2012. One Deputy District Basic Education Officer, Virendra Babu Pal appeared but he possessed no information about the matter. The Court fixed 11.1.2012 requiring respondent No. 3 to appear before it. The respondent No. 3 had the courage not to comply even this order and did not appear on 11.1.2012. One Deputy District Basic Education Officer, Virendra Babu Pal appeared but he possessed no information about the matter. He simply filed an affidavit stating that DBEO is ill. This Court considered his affidavit and passed following order on 11.1.2012: “The audacity of District Basic Education Officer in not complying order of this Court repeatedly is also clear today. Despite the order dated 4.1.2012 he has not himself appeared and has also not shown what order has been passed and in what manner direction of this Court issued in writ petition No. 25139 of 2010 has been complied with. An affidavit has been filed sworn by one Sri Virendra Babu Pal, posted as Deputy District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya stating that the Basic Education Officer Auraiya is ill. No date, no time nor any other detail has been mentioned. It is not clear that since when the Officer concerned is not attending duty. No medical certificate has been placed before this Court. The affidavit is wholly unreliable. Since the District Basic Education Officer Auraiya appears to be habitual of disobeying orders of this Court, I am constrained to issue non bailable warrant ensuring his presence before this Court on 20.1.2012. This order shall be implemented through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya. Office shall take immediate steps. In case, Chief Judicial Magistrate finds any difficulty in execution of this order, he shall immediately inform Superintendent of Police Auraiya who shall arrest the said Officer and produce before this Court on 20.1.2012. A copy of this order shall also be sent to Secretary, Basic Education to look into the matter forthwith. List/ put up this matter on 20.1.2012.” 8. Office report dated 16.1.2012 shows that certified copy of order was communicated to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya on the same date. Non bailable was were also issued through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya by fax and speed post. A compliance report has been submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which shows that he forwarded warrant for execution to Superintendent of Police, Auriaya. Non bailable was were also issued through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya by fax and speed post. A compliance report has been submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which shows that he forwarded warrant for execution to Superintendent of Police, Auriaya. There is a copy of order dated 18.1.2012 issued by Superintendent of Police, Auraiya directing Sri Chandra Shekhar Dubey, In charge Kotwali, Auraiya to execute Non Bailable Warrant and produce respondent No. 3 before this Court on 20.1.2012. 9. However, on 20.1.2012 when the matter was taken up, respondent No. 3 himself was present but not under custody. He informed that he was never served with any warrant and was never arrested. He has also filed a detailed affidavit. 10. In para 34 of his affidavit respondent No. 3 i.e. Sri Manoj Kumar Ahirwar, has said that on 13.1.2012 he passed an order in compliance of judgment dated 6.5.2010 in writ petition No. 25139 of 2010 and the said order was given dispatch number and date of 16.1.2012, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 20 to the affidavit. By means thereof he has rejected petitioner’s request with regard to selection of two Assistant Teachers but has permitted selection for the purpose of Head Master by taking fresh step for advertisement etc. subject to restriction of observance of Teacher’s Eligibility Test and other directions and regulations of National Council for Teacher Education made in this respect. 11. The validity of the said order is not under challenge therefore I am not concerned herewith to this order but would have to consider the approach and conduct of respondent No. 3 in this matter and the manner in which he has handled the case and responded. 12. It is really unfortunate that Officers like DBEO can dare to simply ignore orders of this Court with impunity as if directions are issued by the Court in a routine manner and are not liable to be observed and complied. It also appears to be an impression on his part that if ultimately something happen, and the Court take a stern view of the matter, it can be belittled and it would be suffice to close the chapter by passing an order and thereafter nothing would and can touch and scrutinise his conduct. If this impression is allowed to prevail upon the executive, the very foundation of strength of justice system will shake. If this impression is allowed to prevail upon the executive, the very foundation of strength of justice system will shake. It will erode confidence of people in common who look to the judiciary with a hope and trust that arbitrariness, illegality, inaction etc. on the part of executive would be checked by judiciary and orders passed by Courts of law shall be enforced with iron hand. The Court will not permit an Executive, how so high he mighty be, to show even a glimpse of defiance or non compliance of the orders of the Court of law without facing severe consequences. This Court is under a constitutional obligation to maintain and uphold this trust of the common man. 13. The casual fashion with which DBEO has dealt with this matter is evident. His action is really strange and shocking. Even before this Court he has taken all kinds of excuses and pretext to shirk away from his responsibility. In para 32 of affidavit of respondent No. 3 he has said about his illness on 10.1.2012 and his inability to come to Allahabad on account of such illness. The entire averment is made in para 30 however have been sworn on the basis of record. The respondent himself was not aware of the state of his health and for that purpose has taken shelter of record while swearing affidavit. He has placed on record a medical certificate claimed to have been issued by one Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, whose prescription is on page 100 of the affidavit. It shows that the aforesaid Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma is running a diagnostic centre having X-ray, E.C.G., Ultrasound and computerized pathology and the medicine he has prescribed therein are general medicines like vitamins, painkiller etc. The illness detected by Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma is fever and cough. The medicine prescribed is said to have been purchased by the respondent from Prakash Medical Store, Station Road, Azad Nagar, Dibiyapur (Auraiya) on the same date. The interesting thing is that, in the entire affidavit, it is not said by him that he sought any medical leave and did not attend office on account of his ill health. The respondent No. 3, Government servant is entitled for medical treatment in the Government Hospital. Auraiya is a district where District Government Hospital is also there. The interesting thing is that, in the entire affidavit, it is not said by him that he sought any medical leave and did not attend office on account of his ill health. The respondent No. 3, Government servant is entitled for medical treatment in the Government Hospital. Auraiya is a district where District Government Hospital is also there. But he did not find his illness serious enough to be examined by expert Government doctors. Admittedly, medical certificate, which has now been produced alongwith affidavit in question, did not exist before the Court on 11.1.2012 when the matter was earlier taken up and the affidavit was filed by his subordinate officer namely Sri Virendra Babu Pal without appending any document therewith though he had sworn the said affidavit on 11.1.2012 at about 9.a.m. This fact, Court had observed in its earlier order. Even in the order dated 16.1.2012, which respondent No. 3 has now passed, there is no nomination at all. In order to reject advertisement already published by petitioner, he has referred to Rule 7 of Rules 1978 that it was published without any prior approval though Rule 7 of Rules 1978 does not contemplate any such permission. 14. In the entire affidavit he has repeatedly said that he has given opportunity to petitioner to produce record but could not explain as to why a nominee could not appointed by him. Other investigation could have been done by DBEO when after selection, the documents are sent for his scrutiny seeking prior approval under Rule 10(4) and (5) of Rules 1978 but for the reason best known to respondent No. 3, he has tried to obstruct the process of selection at the threshold by total inaction on his part. The story of managerial dispute is also of no consequence in this matter since admittedly when this Court passed order on 6.1.2012, and thereafter, it does not appear that there was any obstruction on the part of respondent No. 3 to defer selection. The respondent No. 3, therefore, is clearly responsible for total inaction and non observance of statutory duties without any valid reason or excuse. He has forced upon the petitioner this litigation by his conduct which is apparently unbecoming of a Government servant and deserve to be condemned strongly. The respondent No. 3, therefore, is clearly responsible for total inaction and non observance of statutory duties without any valid reason or excuse. He has forced upon the petitioner this litigation by his conduct which is apparently unbecoming of a Government servant and deserve to be condemned strongly. It is also to be seen that for failure to make any nomination in the Selection Committee, respondent No. 3 has not been able to furnish any explanation whatsoever except of stating, when confronted with all this situation, that he may be excused and pardoned. 15. Besides the above, I also find conduct of Superintendent of Police, Auraiya in not ensuring execution of Non Bailable warrant in a proper manner and taking things lightly as if mere sending of letter to In-charge police station was sufficient compliance on his part also. This laxity on his part cannot be approved. His inaction in ensuring execution of non bailable warrant against respondent No. 3 cannot be appreciated. In my view this dereliction on his part should be taken note of by his next superior i.e. Deputy Inspector General, Kanpur Range while recording his annual character roll. A copy of this order shall be sent to Deputy Inspector General, Kanpur Range forthwith by Registrar General for information and compliance. 16. So far as relief sought in this writ petition as also the conduct of respondent No. 3 are concerned, in my view, the writ petition be disposed of with the following direction: (i) Respondent No. 3 shall nominate a person as contemplated under Rule 9 of Rules 1978 to be the member of Selection Committee forthwith and in any case within one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. (ii) Regarding his conduct, inaction and inefficiency shown, as discussed above, Secretary (Secondary Education) shall take appropriate disciplinary action and complete proceedings with further information/communication of the ultimate order passed by him, to this Court, within six month from today. (iii) On the laxity shown by S.P. Auraiya, the matter shall be looked and enquired by State Government with completion of proceedings within six months. (iv) The petitioner shall be entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs. (iii) On the laxity shown by S.P. Auraiya, the matter shall be looked and enquired by State Government with completion of proceedings within six months. (iv) The petitioner shall be entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs. 10,000/- against respondent No. 3 which shall be paid by him to the petitioner within one week failing which on an application submitted by petitioner before Registrar General, he shall issue a requisite certificate to recover the amount of cost as arrears of land revenue from respondent No. 3. 17. I order accordingly. ——————