Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3156 (ALL)

Gomti Prasad v. State of U. P.

2016-09-15

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. 1. The petitioner claims that he was appointed to the post of Sweeper in a recognized intermediate college, namely, Mata Prasad Sahu Kisan Inter College, Kook Nagar Grant, Gonda. He is aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 06th June, 2013 whereby he has declined to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. 3. Mata Prasad Sahu Kisan Inter College (for short, the "Institution") is recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. It imparts education up to XIIth standard. It receives financial aid from the State Government and is governed under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Regulations framed thereunder and the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. 4. It is stated that a vacancy occurred in the post of class-IV (Sweeper) on the retirement of a regular employee Shri Ram Sanjeevan on 30th September, 2012. The Committee of Management of the Institution is stated to have sent a requisition to fill this post on 30th October, 2012 to the District Inspector of Schools. When no response was made by the office of the District Inspector of Schools, the said vacancy was advertised in two daily newspapers, namely, U.P. India Times and Hindi Dainik 'Anthawan Ashcharya' on 07.01.2013 and 08.01.2013 respectively. The petitioner made an application pursuant to the said advertisement and he was found suitable for the said post. 5. It is stated that the papers relating to the recruitment were sent to the office of the District Inspector of Schools. When no decision was communicated to the Committee of Management by the District Inspector of Schools, an appointment letter was issued on 29.01.2013. The petitioner claims that he has joined the said post on 29.01.2013. The Principal of the Institution sent a communication to the District Inspector of Schools for the sanction of salary bill of the petitioner on 07.02.2013. In response to the said communication of the Principal, the District Inspector of Schools vide impugned order dated 06th June, 2013 has rejected the claim only on the ground that the appointment has been made without his approval. No other ground has been mentioned in the impugned order. 6. In response to the said communication of the Principal, the District Inspector of Schools vide impugned order dated 06th June, 2013 has rejected the claim only on the ground that the appointment has been made without his approval. No other ground has been mentioned in the impugned order. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State functionaries. The same grounds, as taken in the impugned order, have been reiterated in the counter affidavit. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 8. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner has been made after sending the requisition to the District Inspector of Schools and when no decision was taken, an advertisement was made in two widely circulated newspapers and after following the procedure under the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 the appointment of the petitioner has been made. Next, he submitted that proviso appended to the Regulation 101 of the Act, 1921 provides that for the appointment on the post of sweeper the District Inspector of Schools can accord permission. 9. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Committee of Management has not issued the advertisement in widely circulated newspapers and for the said reason the selection is vitiated. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Indisputably, a vacancy occurred in the post of Sweeper in the Institution. From the record it appears that the Principal/Committee of Management made some correspondence to the office of the District Inspector of Schools seeking his permission to initiate the recruitment process to fill up the said post. The Committee of Management thereafter has made an advertisement in the newspapers which have been brought on the record. However, the District Inspector of Schools has declined to accord approval only on the ground that prior permission was not sought from him. In my view, the said stand appears to be non-existent as the Committee of Management sent the letter dated 30.10.2012 to the District Inspector of Schools seeking his approval / permission for the said recruitment. 12. It is averred by the petitioner in paragraph-3 of the writ petition that permission was sought on 30th October, 2012 from the District Inspector of Schools to fill up the said vacancy. 12. It is averred by the petitioner in paragraph-3 of the writ petition that permission was sought on 30th October, 2012 from the District Inspector of Schools to fill up the said vacancy. The said statement of fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Thus the petitioner has successfully demonstrated that before initiating recruitment process, prior permission was sought by the Committee of Management but no decision was taken by the office of the District Inspector of Schools. 13. A Division Bench had occasioned to consider the said issue in the case of Jagdish Singh etc. v. State of U.P. and others etc. (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2765 . The Court held that prior approval contemplated under Regulation 101 is prior approval after completion of the selection process. Relevant part of the judgement reads as under: "22. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that prior approval contemplated under Regulation 101 is prior approval by the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection and before issuance of appointment letter to the selected candidate." 14. I find that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has sufficient force that in the case of appointment of a sweeper the District Inspector of Schools can accord approval under the proviso appended to Regulation 101, which reads as under: **101- fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh fujh{kd ds iwokZuqeksnu ds flok; fdlh ekU;rk izkIr] lgk;rk izkIr laLFkk ds f"k{k.ksRrj in dh fjfDr dks ugha Hkjsxk A izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd leLr fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k f'k{kk funs'kd] ek/;fed dks miyC/k djk;sxk rFkk la[;k esa Nk= la[;k n'kkZrs gq;s inksa dks Hkjs tkus ds vkSfpR; dks Hkh Li"V djsaxs A f"k{kk funs"kd ek/;fed ds vkns'k izkIr gksus ij ftyk fo|ky; fujah{kd mDr fjfDr;ksa dks Hkjus gsrq fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks vuqefr iznku djsxk vkSj vuqefr iznku djrs le; 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vkj{k.k fu;eksa ,oa inksa ds vkSfpR; ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr ekudksa dk ikyu djk;sxk A izfrcU/k ;g gS fd teknkj ds in dh fjfDr dks fujh{kd }kjk Hkjus dh vuqefr nh tk ldrh gS A** 15. In addition to above, there is no denial of the fact that a vacancy occurred in the post of sweeper in the Institution. In addition to above, there is no denial of the fact that a vacancy occurred in the post of sweeper in the Institution. Since no other ground has been mentioned in the impugned order, I am of the view that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is unsustainable in view of the law laid down in Jagdish Singh (supra). 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06th June, 2013 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made above expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order. 17. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 18. No order as to costs.