Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 769 (ALL)

Mahip Narayan Singh v. State of U. P. and Others

2013-03-08

A.P.SAHI

body2013
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who prays for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2012 and 20.2.2013 whereby his continuance as an Assistant Block Resource Coordinator has been annulled on the ground that the petitioner's appointment was not in accordance with rules. The contention of Sri Tripathi, is that this order has been passed at the behest of the direction issued by the District Magistrate who is no authority in the matter, and therefore, the order having been passed on the dictate of the superior authority who is not the statutory authority amounts to surrender of jurisdiction. He therefore contends that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. It is further stated in Para 36 as an alternative argument that the petitioner's engagement was in a stop gap arrangement as A.B.R.C. (English) till a regular selection is made in terms of the Government Order applicable. It has been stated that no regular selection has been held so far. He contends that even otherwise the petitioner should be made to continue till such arrangement is made and therefore the impugned order is erroneous. Having heard Sri Tewari, the engagement of a Block Resource Coordinator or an Assistant is governed by the provisions of the relevant Government Orders one of them being dated 2nd February, 2011 copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It is admitted to the petitioner that he was never selected or appointed in terms of the procedure prescribed under the said Government Order. His appointment by the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur was by way of a stop gap arrangement vide order dated 22nd July, 2011 till selections are held in accordance with the same. I have perused the appointment order which categorically recites that the petitioner was being appointed till selections are held. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner does not appear to have been made in accordance with the prevalent rules. The Government Order nowhere indicates that the Basic Education Officer has the authority to make an appointment by way of a stop gap arrangement. In the circumstances, appointment of the petitioner does not appear to have been made in accordance with the Government Order. The Government Order nowhere indicates that the Basic Education Officer has the authority to make an appointment by way of a stop gap arrangement. In the circumstances, appointment of the petitioner does not appear to have been made in accordance with the Government Order. The issue therefore as to whether the District Magistrate had issued a direction or not to the Basic Education Officer becomes purely academic and irrelevant on the facts of the present case when the appointment cannot be sustained on merits. In view of the reasons given hereinabove the discontinuance of the petitioner therefore does not suffer from any infirmity, inasmuch as, fresh selections have to be held by the authority in accordance with the said Government Order. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. A feeble opposition had been raised to the qualification of the petitioner that he is a science graduate and therefore he could not have been appointed as a coordinator in the subject of English. Since the petitioner's very appointment is not founded on the procedure prescribed, therefore, it is not necessary to go into this question. The writ petition is dismissed with the said observations. _____________