Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3061 (ALL)

Mukesh Kumar Singh v. Dios and 3 Ors.

2013-12-16

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, SANJAY MISRA

body2013
Sanjay Misra, J:- This special appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petition before the learned Single Judge was filed challenging an order dated 10 March 1999 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur insofar it directed the stoppage of the salary of the appellant. In the writ petition, the appellant specifically came with a case that upon the retirement of an LT grade teacher in the institution (Sri Mathura Singh Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Koilari, Jaunpur), one Sri Ram Surat Singh who was the senior most CT grade teacher of the institution was promoted on 1 July 1997 following which a short term vacancy in CT grade occurred in the institution. The appellant had specifically averred in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that there was a short term vacancy in the CT grade. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed against a short term vacancy. This fact has been admitted even during the course of hearing of the appeal. An order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 10 February, 1999 stating that the approval was being granted to the appointment of the appellant against a short term vacancy until Ram Murat Singh returned to his original post or until further directions. On 10 March 1999, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur passed an order by which he directed the stoppage of the salary of the appellant. Following this, the appellant filed a writ petition (Writ - A No. 38309 of 1999) in which an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the order dated 10 March 1999 insofar it relates to the appellant shall remain stayed. This order was passed only on the ground that the direction for stoppage of salary was issued without affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard. In consequence, the appellant though admittedly appointed against the short term vacancy continued to receive salary and he continued on that basis since then. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 27 November 2013 noted the fact that the appellant was appointed only on a short term vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher and his appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on that basis. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 27 November 2013 noted the fact that the appellant was appointed only on a short term vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher and his appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on that basis. The learned Single Judge also observed that it is not disputed that the order of appointment has neither been cancelled nor any order adverse to the interest of the appellant has been passed. The petition in the circumstances was dismissed as infructuous. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the petition had not been rendered infructuous since he was aggrieved by the order dated 10 March 1999 in regard to the stoppage of his salary without affording to him an opportunity of being heard. The admitted position before this Court is that the appellant was appointed only against a short term vacancy as we have noted above and that is the basis of the petition which was filed before the learned Single Judge by the appellant himself. Following the stoppage of his salary on 10 March 1999, the appellant was granted interim relief on 8 September 1999 as a result of which he states that his salary continued to be paid and he continued in service thereafter. As the learned Single Judge has noted, the appellant has not come with the case that there is any order adverse to his continuance. The point, however, is that the appellant has been appointed against a short term vacancy. The appellant can have no case to continue indefinitely under a protective interim order. The object and purpose of the petition has been more than fulfilled by the interim order which held the field from 8 March 1999 until 27 November 2013. If the appellant had any claim in respect of the post, that was admittedly not the subject of the writ proceedings and the person against whose vacancy the appellant was appointed for a short term was not a party to the proceedings. Hence considering the matter from any perspective, we find no reason to interfere in the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, particularly having regard to the nature of the original appointment of the appellant which was only against a short term vacancy. The appellant cannot possibly claim regularization on the strength of his having continued by virtue of an interim order. The appellant cannot possibly claim regularization on the strength of his having continued by virtue of an interim order. 4. Hence there is no merit in the special appeal which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________