RAM NARAIN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Mishra, the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents as well as Sri Anand Prakash Srivastava who has appeared on behalf of the sixth and seventh respondents.

(2.) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 6 September 2011 pursuant to which the earlier orders of 12 November 2010 and 11 July 2011 approving the appointment of the petitioner on Class -IV post has come to be recalled. The petitioner claims to have been appointed in the respondent institution pursuant to a recruitment exercise initiated in terms of an advertisement of 27 December 2008. On conclusion of the recruitment process, the petitioner who was selected was issued an appointment letter on 11 February 2009. Since it was alleged that he was not being permitted to join by the Management, he came to prefer Writ -A No. 28716 of 2010 Ram Narayan Yadav v. Joint Director of Education And Another. That petition was dismissed by a learned Judge on 19 May 2010. However, while dismissing the petition the learned Judge observed thus:

(3.) Pursuant to the directions issued requiring the District Inspector of Schools to reappraise the entire matter as also to evaluate its validity in light of the decision rendered in Principal, Adarsh Inter College, Umari, Bijnor v. State of U.P. And Others 2010 (1) ADJ 403 the District Inspector of Schools upon due consideration of the material on the record proceeded to pass an order on 12 November 2010 approving the appointment of the petitioner. The dispute appears to have lingered even thereafter constraining the petitioner to institute yet another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 23037 of 2011 Ram Narayan Yadav v. State of U.P. And Others. The grievance which was voiced therein was that despite the appointment having been approved he was not being paid salary. That petition came to be disposed of on 22 April 2011 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to attend to the representations as made by the petitioner and the claims raised therein. It was pursuant to that direction that the impugned order of 6 September 2011 came to be passed. In order to complete the narration of facts it may only be additionally noted that the Principal of the institution also appears to have preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ - A No. -74703 of 2010 Principal, Guru Nanak Khalsa Balika Inter College v. State of U.P. And Others alleging that the selection and appointment of the petitioner was illegal. That petition has presently been dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court is apprised that an application for restoration is still pending.