GARIMA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) St. Thomas Inter College, Shahganj, District Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Institution') is an educational institution recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1921') and the provisions of Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 are also attracted upon it. Certain vacancies came into existence and the institution proceeded to advertise the vacancies for the purposes of making substantive appointment which included posts of Lecturer in History (one) and in Art and Craft (one).

(2.) The advertisement was published in English news paper 'Hindustan Times' and also in a Hindi news paper 'Hindustan' on 20.1.2011. So far as appointment on the post of Lecturer in History is concerned, nine persons applied and the petitioner was adjudged the best candidate by the selection committee constituted under Section 161 of the Act of 1921, in the interview held on 10.4.2011. Papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur for grant of approval to the appointment offered to petitioner on 19.4.2011. An appointment letter was also issued to the petitioner on 19.4.2011. It appears that the claim of petitioner for grant of financial approval was not accorded consideration and consequently petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 58361 of 2011, which came to be disposed of, directing the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to take an appropriate decision in the matter. Pursuant to such direction claim of petitioner for grant of financial approval has been considered by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur vide its order dated 11.11.2011. The Inspector has noticed in his order that the advertisement was not properly issued inasmuch as the font size was extremely small and minimum qualification, minimum age and also pay scale admissible for the post was not specified in terms of Regulation-17 (a), framed under Chapter-II of the Act of 1921. The procedure contemplated has also not been found to have been followed inasmuch even before papers were forwarded to the Inspector for grant of approval, the committee proceeded to appoint the petitioner. It has, therefore, been observed that without prior approval from the Inspector, the appointment itself could not have been made and consequently, the authority concerned has denied financial approval to petitioner's appointment. It is this order of the Inspector dated 11.11.2011, which is assailed in the present writ petition.

(3.) The Writ Petition has been entertained and following interim protection has been granted on 20.1.2012:-