SATISH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

(2.) The issue is very short but the Petitioner has been made to travel up to this Court on account of an incorrect understanding of the position of law by the District Inspector of Schools, who appears to have skipped over the directions issued by this Court and the findings recorded in relation to the existence of the vacancy and the occupancy of the post against which the Petitioner is claiming salary.

(3.) The dispute in short is that the Petitioner claims to have been appointed on 25.12.1998 against a short term vacancy on the post of a L.T. grade teacher. There is no dispute that the management was authorised to make an appointment against a short term vacancy. Even otherwise, this position stands clarified by this Court while answering a reference through a Division Bench judgment dated 31.3.2010 in the case of Daya Shanker Misra v. District Inspector of Schools and Ors. Writ Petition No. 20843 of 2002. The aforesaid vacancy had arisen on account of an ad hoc promotion of one Raja Ram Yadav as Lecturer in Economics which post was earlier held by one Mohd. Rafiq. Mohd. Rafiq was officiating as Principal and, therefore, he was occupying the said post. Sri. Raja Ram Yadav was not paid salary and refusal to do so came to be challenged by him in Writ Petition No. 14952 of 1999. The Petitioner had also filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7736 of 1999 claiming payment of salary. The said petition was disposed of on 26.2.1999 with a direction to decide the claim of the Petitioner.