Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 134 (ALL)

SUBAS YADAV v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-01-13

RAJES KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2.9.2003 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, by which the approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Clerk made by the Principal of the college in pursuance of the selection made by the selection committee and appointed by the Committee of Management, has been declined. 2. Brief facts of the case are that it appears that the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Clerk in Sarojani Kanya Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Barhaj, Deoria in pursuance of the advertisement. It appears that the petitioner has been selected by the selection committee, constituted by the committee of management vide resolution dated 2.9.2001 and has been appointed on the same day by the committee of management and in pursuance thereof, Principal of the college issued appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Clerk. Subsequently, on 6.1.2001, the papers have been sent to District Inspector of Schools, Deoria for approval of the appointment of the petitioner, which has been declined by the impugned order on the ground that prior approval as contemplated under Regulation 101 of Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has not been taken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no prior approval is required before the selection under Regulation 101 as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh, etc. v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (4) ADJ 162 (All) (DB). He further submitted that prior approval is only required before the appointment, therefore, the selection of the petitioner cannot be held illegal. While considering the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria should not have disputed the selection of the petitioner. 4. Ms. He further submitted that prior approval is only required before the appointment, therefore, the selection of the petitioner cannot be held illegal. While considering the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria should not have disputed the selection of the petitioner. 4. Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria has only disapproved the appointment of the petitioner, inasmuch as the appointment has admittedly been made on 2.1.2001 and the relevant papers have been sent to District Inspector of Schools, Deoria on 6.1.2001 after the appointment and, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria has rightly refused to grant the approval as it was contrary to the Regulation 101. She further submitted that the question for consideration before the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria was approval of the appointment. There was no question before the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria whether the selection was valid or not and, therefore, there was no occasion to make any comment in respect of the selection of the petitioner. The impugned order is wholly justified. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Regulation 101 reads as follows: “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.” Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh, etc. v. State of U.P. and others (Supra) has held that approval by the District Inspector of Schools is not required before the selection and it is only required before making the appointment. In the present case, the appointment of the petitioner has been made on 2.1.2001 by the Principal of the college after the resolution of the committee of management dated 2.1.2001, without taking prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria contrary to the procedure provided under Regulation 101. After making the appointment on 2.1.2001 the necessary papers have been sent on 6.1.2001 to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria was only concerned with the appointment made on 2.1.2001. After making the appointment on 2.1.2001 the necessary papers have been sent on 6.1.2001 to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria was only concerned with the appointment made on 2.1.2001. Since the approval has been sought after making the appointment, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria has declined to grant the approval as the appointment was contrary to the procedure provided under Regulation 101. 6. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by District Inspector of Schools, Deoria. The appointment has been made by the Principal of the college, appointing the petitioner without prior approval, therefore the appointment was ex facie illegal being contrary to Regulation 101 and, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria has rightly refused to grant the approval. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh, etc. v. State of U.P. and others (Supra) is of no help to the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and, is accordingly, dismissed. —————