DINESH Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, MAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India briefly stated are that the petitioner applied for appointment of the post of Pracharak'in the Muslim Intermediate College, Mau, He was selected by the Principal, and joined his duties on Jan. 1, 1988. Since then he has been working on that post. Though in the matter of appointment of class IV employees in the institution no approval is necessary from the District Inspector of Schools, but the Principal forwarded the necessary papers to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. By order dated March 9, 1990 the petitioner was granted financial approval by the District Inspector of Schools. Subsequently without any 1 notice or opportunity having been given to the petitioner the order dated March 9, 1990 was suspended by order dated April 23, 1990 by the District Inspector of Schools. It has further been alleged that after the approval was granted by the District Inspector of schools a cheque for Rs. 1112 was prepared as salary of the petitioner for the month of March 1990. A photostat copy of the cheque has been annexed along with the writ petition. Similarly another cheque for Rs. 96,530.00 was prepared on April 90, 1990 in respect of the arrears of salary to the petitioner with effect from Jan. 1, 1988, a photostat copy of which has also been annexed to the writ petition. Since the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools dated March 9, 1990 was cancelled by order dated April 23, 1990 the District Inspector of Schools a directed the Branch Manager of the Union Bank of India to return the two cheques. It has been alleged that the order dated April 23, 1990 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that he has been validly appointed by the Principal and the cheques were prepared but his salary has not ben paid and the District Inspector of Schools illegally by order dated April 23, 1990 cancelled the order granting approval.

(2.) In this case counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage as, provided under the second proviso to rule 2 of the Chapter XXII of the Rules c Court.

(3.) I have heard Sri R.G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R.M. Singh learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since the petitioner was validity appointed by the Principal, no approval was necessary form the District Inspector of schools. Mr. R.M. Singh, learned counsel of the respondents, contended that for appointment no approval was necessary but the approval is necessary for payment of salary to tire petitioner. He contended that in fact the post in question should have been filled up by a scheduled caste candidate, and since the petitioners was not scheduled caste candidate he was wrongly appointed by the Principal. The order of the Distract Inspector of Schools dated April 23, 1990 cancelling his earlier order dated March 9, 1990 is wholly just and proper: