VIJAY KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notices on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.3.2000 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, whereby cancelling the order dated 16.7.1999, by which financial approval was granted to the Petitioner's appointment and also directed for recovery of the amount from the Petitioner, alongwith other ancillary reliefs.

(3.) Submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 9.9.1986 in Ram Shanker Sachhidanandpal Krishak Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidhyalay (hereinafter to be referred to as "the institution"), which is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act and the institution was taken-into grant-in-aid on 1.4.1991. When the institution was taken in grant-in-aid, the Petitioner made a representation before the Respondent No. 2 for payment of salary from the State Exchequer but the same was refused on the ground that the Petitioner's post in question was not sanctioned. It is further contended that the initial appointment of the Petitioner was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti and therefore, the subsequent order dated 26.8.1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, whereby refusing to grant payment of salary to the Petitioner is bad in law. The Petitioner again moved a representation dated 8.10.1998 before the Respondent No. 1, pursuant to which, the Respondent No. 1 issued a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to examine the matter and do the needful and after re-examining the matter, the Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 16.7.1999 whereby he directed for payment of salary be made to the Petitioner, copy of which order, is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, on account of which, the salary payment was made to the Petitioner, but all of a sudden on 8.3.2000, the Respondent No. 3 cancelled the earlier order dated 16.7.1999 and directed for recovery of the amount which had been paid to the Petitioner as salary. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the aforesaid order dated 8.3.2000, has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same is unsustainable in law. It is further contended that the District Inspector of Schools do not have any power to review the approval order given by him earlier, which can only be done, if the same is done, in consequence of some mistake or fraud. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Rama Shanker Pandey and Ors. v. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and Ors.,1981 UPLBEC 86; Committee of Management Nonapur Inter College, Kanpur v. The District Inspector of Schools and Anr., 1980 UPLBEC 209 in support of his contention.