AZIZULLAH ANSARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant claims himself to be a validly appointed teacher on ad hoc basis in the L.T. Grade in Janta Inter College, Sohang, District Kushi Nagar. The institution is governed by the provisions of the UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the selection and appointment of teachers in such institutions is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules and Regulations framed there under.

(2.) A vacancy arose on 25.10.1991 on account of the death of one Mustaqim Ansari. The appellant claims that it was he, who was selected and appointed against the said substantive vacancy after it was advertised on the Notice board. This decision of the Committee to appoint the appellant was followed by a letter of appointment and the documents were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of financial sanction. The date of selection is 19.12.1991 and the date of letter of appointment is 27.12.1991.

(3.) It is alleged that when no action was taken, the appellant was compelled to file Writ Petition No. 8239 of 1994 in which the State filed a counter-affidavit taking a stand that the appointment cannot be approved as there was a ban imposed by the State Government on making such ad hoc appointments. The said writ petition was finally heard and disposed of on 29.4.1999 directing the District Inspector of Schools, Dcoria, to reconsider the claim of the appellant in accordance with law keeping in view the fact that the State Government had lifted the ban on certain conditions on 26.9.1991, which was prior to the selection and appointment of the appellant. The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 6.8.1999 granted financial sanction to the appointment of the appellant purporting to be in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 29.4.1999. It appears that the District Magistrate was apprised of certain complaints against the District Inspector of Schools and appointments in the district alleging that the financial sanction has been wrongly extended to the teachers appointed including the appellant. The District Magistrate, accordingly, issued directions to the District Inspector of Schools to cancel the financial sanction as extended by the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools on 9.11.2000 stopped the payment of salary to the appellant referring to an inquiry held by the District Magistrate through a Committee. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 5206 of 2001, assailing the said order of the District Inspector of Schools.